U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

Reference Checking 

in the Department of Justice 

January 2013 

I-2013-002 
 

 

 

EXECUTIVE DIGEST 

INTRODUCTION 

The Office of the Inspector General conducted this review to assess 

whether and how Department of Justice (Department) components 

contact job applicants’ references to evaluate their past performance 

when making hiring decisions, and whether component policies exist to 

guide reference check practices. This report is intended to provide 

component hiring officials and human resource policy makers with 

practical information to help them select the most qualified, capable job 

applicants.1 

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) defines reference 

checking as an objective evaluation of an applicant’s past job 

performance based on information collected from key individuals – 

including supervisors, coworkers, and subordinates – who have known 

and worked with the applicant.2 Reference checks are conducted to 

verify the accuracy of information the applicant provides, better predict 

an applicant’s job success, and provide information about the applicant’s 

professional reputation and accomplishments.3 Reference checking 

allows hiring officials to make a more informed hiring decision, avoid the 

cost of hiring an employee who does not perform well or remains in the 

position for only a short time, and ensure the applicant is a good 

organizational fit for the position. Because reference checks are used to 

guide a hiring decision, they are conducted before selecting an applicant 

and making a conditional job offer. 

No government-wide requirements exist for reference checking as a 

part of the hiring process for federal applicants. However, OPM and the 

Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) encourage federal agencies to 

check applicant references for every hiring action. The Department 

requires reference checking only for new career attorney applicants. The 

Department has delegated to its components the authority to set 

reference checking policies for other occupations. 

1 We use the term “hiring officials” to describe any individuals having input into 

the hiring process, regardless of whether they make the final hiring selection. We use 

the term “applicants” to describe all individuals who submit an application. 

2 OPM, Assessment Decision Guide (undated), 33. 

3 OPM, Reference Checking (undated). 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

i 
 

 

Because there is no requirement that hiring officials conduct, 

document, or retain records of reference checks for all employees, we did 

not attempt to identify the number of individuals in the Department who 

were reference checked or those who were not hired as a result of 

reference checking. Consequently, we are unable to comment on the 

actual prevalence of reference checking across the Department in this 

report. Rather, we identify the components that provided written 

reference check policies, guidance, questions, or described practices to 

us during our review. We also present information about reference check 

practices developed through a telephone survey we conducted of 

component hiring officials and interviews with human resource, security, 

and hiring managers. 

RESULTS IN BRIEF 

For non-law enforcement positions, reference check policies for 

new hires were inconsistent across the Department during our review 

period of February through September 2011.4 Only 3 of the 39 

components whose policies we reviewed provided their hiring officials 

with clear, written reference check guidance that included positionspecific questions for officials to ask references and addressed 

documentation requirements for reference checks. Nine components had 

general written policies or related guidance (such as tip sheets) for 

conducting reference checks on new employees, but this guidance was 

not always position-specific and did not always address documentation 

requirements. Thirteen components provided only a reference check 

questionnaire or form, but did not provide any additional written policy 

or guidance about when to use it. The remaining 14 components had no 

written policies, guidance, or forms. 

For law enforcement positions, policies and practices were 

generally consistent in that there were no policies requiring reference 

checks for new law enforcement applicants, and hiring managers told us 

that they did not conduct reference checks when hiring these new staff. 

Notably, the two largest components – the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation and the Federal Bureau of Prisons, which made 63 percent 

of the Department’s fiscal year 2010 hiring actions in all job series within 

our scope – did not conduct reference checks for most new employees. 

Instead, components used methods other than reference checking to 

4 In this report, we define law enforcement positions as those in the 1811 

Criminal Investigation Occupational Series, which includes special agents (criminal 

investigators) and deputy U.S. marshals. Deputy U.S. marshals hired under the 0082 

Deputy U.S. Marshal Series are also included in our definition. We do not include 

correctional officers in the 007 job series in the definition of law enforcement. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

ii 
 

 

assess the skills and aptitudes of new applicants for law enforcement 

positions, such as background investigations; performance assessments 

of applicants during training at a federal law enforcement training 

center; polygraph examinations; logic, cognitive, and behavior tests; 

panel interviews; medical examinations; drug tests; and fitness tests. 

While these methods may demonstrate the applicant’s abilities and 

suitability for employment and eligibility for national security access, 

they do not replace a reference check, which provides valuable 

performance information directly from prior employers and others who 

have worked with the applicant. 

Reference check practices varied considerably within components. 

Hiring officials who hired new applicants into non-law enforcement 

positions told us they generally conducted reference checks and 

described the benefits they believed conducting the checks provided. As 

recommended by OPM and MSPB, most hiring officials who conducted 

reference checks were managers, and those managers contacted 

professional references (individuals who have worked with the applicant). 

In addition to contacting references provided by the applicant, hiring 

officials followed OPM and MSPB recommendations to contact additional 

references not provided by the applicant and generally contacted all 

references by telephone. However, we found that hiring officials 

generally did not conduct reference checks at the most useful point in 

the hiring process, did not obtain applicants’ permission before 

contacting additional references, and did not document reference checks 

using a standard form, as OPM and MSPB recommend. 

Further, some components mistakenly conducted vouchering – a 

type of suitability determination – in lieu of a reference check.5 In 

addition, not all components were aware of, or were following, an Office 

of Attorney Recruitment and Management (OARM) requirement to 

conduct both reference checks and vouchering for attorney hires. 

Finally, hiring officials we interviewed who reported that they usually 

conducted reference checks were often uncertain of their component’s 

reference check expectations and allowable practices. Specifically, they 

5 Vouchering is conducted in the Department using a form with standard 

questions (for example, questions involving the applicant’s trustworthiness, honesty, 

reliability, and loyalty to the United States) corresponding to some of the suitability 

factors in 5 C.F.R. part 731 (see Appendix I). In contrast, reference checking is an 

objective evaluation of an applicant’s past job performance based on information 

collected from key individuals who have known and worked with the applicant. 

Because they are used to guide a hiring decision, reference checks are conducted before 

selecting an applicant and making a conditional job offer, while suitability 

determinations are typically conducted after the agency has selected an applicant and 

made a conditional job offer. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

iii 
 

were generally uncertain whether reference checking was required and 

for which positions; what questions they could ask during a reference 

check; and how they should document and retain reference check 

information. Those hiring officials expressed a need for flexible reference 

check guidance, including recommended questions and best practices. 

Clear guidance and more certainty among hiring officials about 

their component’s expectations with regard to reference checks are 

needed.6 Currently, hiring officials may not be asking questions in a 

manner that elicits the most useful or descriptive response, or hiring 

officials may be asking irrelevant or inappropriate questions of 

references. We believe these conditions diminish the effectiveness of 

reference checking and can contribute to unknowingly hiring a poor 

performer or an unqualified applicant. 

Further, we believe a cursory check of an applicant’s suitability for 

federal service, such as vouchering, cannot serve as a substitute for a 

reference check because vouchering does not verify the applicant’s duties 

in past positions or evaluate an applicant’s past performance. 

Understanding the differences between the purposes of a suitability 

determination, such as vouchering, and reference checking is critical to 

ensuring an applicant is thoroughly screened for both suitability and 

capability. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

We make six recommendations to the Justice Management 

Division to improve selection of the most qualified job applicants across 

the Department: 

1. Issue guidance to Department component heads, Executive 

Officers, and Human Resources Officers clarifying the purposes 

of, and distinctions between, suitability determinations (such as 

vouchering) and reference checking, including differences in 

topics covered, who conducts the checks, the sources 

contacted, and when in the hiring process each occurs; 

6 A working group within the Attorney General’s Advisory Council for Savings 

and Efficiencies (SAVE Council) has drafted an Employment Reference Questionnaire 

for hiring officials intended for Department-wide use when contacting applicants’ 

references. In May 2012, the Justice Management Division published the questionnaire 

in the Federal Register and requested comments by July 2, 2012. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

iv 
 

2. Reiterate components’ obligation to follow OARM Memorandum 

2010-3, which requires both reference checking and vouchering 

using Form OBD-236 for attorney applicants; 

3. Justice Management Division Human Resources/ 

Administration office (JMD HR) develop and issue Departmentwide guidance on the use of reference checks; 

4. JMD HR assist components to update or issue comprehensive 

reference check guidance that meets their unique hiring needs; 

5. Create a central location on the Department’s intranet where 

general reference check guidance for components and hiring 

managers is posted and regularly updated, including guidance 

from OPM and MSPB, as well as Department best practices and 

sample reference check questions; and 

6. Provide periodic training on reference checks, or include it as a 

part of broader human resource training. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

v 
 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

BACKGROUND ................................................................................. 1
 

PART I: DEPARTMENT REFERENCE CHECK POLICIES AND 

PART II: REFERENCE CHECK PRACTICES AND RELATED
 

APPENDIX II: OPM- AND MSPB-RECOMMENDED 

PRACTICES FOR COMPILING AND ASKING REFERENCE 

APPENDIX III: OIG DATA REQUEST AND COMPONENTS IN 

APPENDIX IV: COMPONENT AND HIRING OFFICIAL SAMPLE 

APPENDIX VI: SELECTED TELEPHONE SURVEY RESPONSE 

APPENDIX VIII: JUSTICE MANAGEMENT DIVISION RESPONSE 

APPENDIX IX: OIG ANALYSIS OF JUSTICE MANAGEMENT
 

PURPOSE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY OF THE OIG REVIEW .... 10
 

RESULTS OF THE REVIEW............................................................. 15
 

GUIDANCE .............................................................................. 15
 

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ..................... 30
 

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................... 59
 

APPENDIX I: FORM OBD-236 ........................................................ 61
 

CHECK QUESTIONS ....................................................................... 64
 

REVIEW SCOPE.............................................................................. 69
 

FOR TELEPHONE SURVEY ............................................................. 72
 

APPENDIX V: OIG TELEPHONE SURVEY INSTRUMENT ................. 76
 

RESULTS ........................................................................................ 91
 

APPENDIX VII: REFERENCE CHECK QUESTIONS ....................... 106
 

TO DRAFT REPORT ...................................................................... 110
 

DIVISION RESPONSE ................................................................... 113
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 
 

 

BACKGROUND 

Reference checking is one of several assessment methods used by 

hiring officials to select the most qualified job applicants.7 The 

U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) defines reference checking 

as an objective evaluation of an applicant’s past job performance based 

on information collected from key individuals – including supervisors, 

coworkers, and subordinates – who have known and worked with the 

applicant.8 This information is typically collected during structured, 

probing telephone discussions between the prospective employer and 

those key individuals. Because reference checking is meant to guide a 

hiring decision for each pool of applicants, it is to be conducted prior to 

selecting a final applicant, extending a conditional job offer, or initiating 

a background investigation. Although OPM encourages federal agencies 

to conduct reference checks and offers guidance, and although the 

Department of Justice (Department) requires reference checks for new 

career attorney applicants, neither OPM nor the Department requires 

reference checking as part of the hiring process for all federal or 

Department applicants. 

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted this review to 

assess whether and how Department components contacted applicants’ 

references to evaluate their past job performance when making hiring 

decisions. The review objectives were to determine: (1) the extent to 

which component hiring officials checked applicants’ references, 

(2) whether policies existed to guide reference checking, and (3) the 

practices and specific reference check questions cited by component 

hiring officials as most effective. This report is intended to provide hiring 

officials and human resource policy makers with practical information 

and recommendations to ensure the most qualified job applicants are 

selected. 

7 We use the term “hiring officials” to describe any individuals having input into 

the hiring process, regardless of whether they make the final hiring selection. We use 

the term “applicants” to describe all individuals who submit an application. Some 

agencies use the term “candidates” to describe a narrower pool of applicants identified 

for further employment consideration and screening, which may include reference 

checking. For consistency in this report, we use the term “applicants” broadly and use 

the term “candidates” where we quote an agency’s policy or other reference. 

8 OPM, Assessment Decision Guide (undated), 33. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

1 
 

Purpose and Benefits of Reference Checks 

Reference checking serves several important purposes in the hiring 

process, according to OPM and the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

(MSPB).9 First, it is used “to verify the accuracy of information already 

provided by job applicants” on their résumés and in interviews. Second, 

it is used to better “predict applicants’ job success by comparing their 

experience to the competencies required by the position.”10 Both OPM 

and MSPB noted that reference checking relies on the “behavior 

consistency principle” that past performance (in this case, an applicant’s 

past job performance) is the most reliable predictor of future behavior. 

Third, reference checking can reveal “information about applicants that 

may not be identified through other selection procedures,” such as their 

professional reputation among colleagues, clients, supervisors, or 

subordinates, and a more accurate picture of the applicant’s 

accomplishments that is, as MSPB noted, undistorted by a “self-serving 

bias.” 

Both OPM and MSPB encourage federal agencies to conduct 

reference checks, citing a number of benefits. For example, MSPB noted 

that conducting reference checks allows hiring officials to make more 

informed hiring decisions and avoid the cost of a “bad hire.” In addition, 

9 In 2005, MSPB published an advisory report, Reference Checking in Federal 

Hiring: Making the Call, which offers recommendations and best practices on reference 

checking. MSPB has statutory authority to conduct objective, non-partisan studies that 

assess federal merit systems policies, operations, and practices. 

MSPB’s report made nine recommendations to hiring officials, agencies, 

reference providers, and OPM. MSPB recommended that hiring officials: “(1) conduct 

reference checks for each hiring decision; (2) develop and follow a thoughtful reference 

checking strategy that is an integral part of the hiring process; and (3) use a consistent 

reference checking process that treats all applicants fairly, obtains valid and useful 

information, and follows legal guidelines.” MSPB recommended that agencies: 

“(4) require applicants to provide appropriate professional references and make 

applicants responsible for ensuring that they can be contacted; (5) review and possibly 

revise their formal systems of records so that supervisors may review past performance 

information when providing references; (6) require job applicants to complete the 

Declaration for Federal Employment (OF-306) form early in the application process; and 

(7) increase standardization of and training in effective reference checking techniques.” 

MSPB recommended that OPM: “(8) develop guidelines to help agency personnel follow 

appropriate procedures for checking and providing references.” MSPB recommended 

supervisors and other employees: “(9) provide candid and appropriate reference 

information.” 

10 OPM defines a competency as “a measurable pattern of knowledge, skills, 

abilities, behaviors, and other characteristics that an individual needs to perform work 

roles or occupational functions successfully.” Assessment Decision Guide (undated), 4. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

2 
 

 

MSPB noted that reference checks improve an agency’s ability to match 

the job to the applicant to ensure that the applicant will be successful in 

the position, a concept often referred to as “organizational fit.” Reference 

checks also allow hiring officials to retrieve more information about the 

applicant’s experience, which can help identify future training needs. 

Further, simply notifying applicants that the hiring process includes a 

reference check communicates the agency’s expectations for integrity and 

accountability. MSPB cited other benefits to agencies, including 

demonstrating fairness and equal treatment of all job applicants, 

maintaining employee morale by making sound hiring decisions, and 

bolstering the public’s trust that civil servants take hiring seriously. 

Department Policy on Reference Checking 

There is no Department-wide published policy on reference 

checking, except with respect to attorney hiring. However, a 

Department-wide council established by the Attorney General in 2010 is 

currently developing a questionnaire for reference checking, and as 

described later in this report, some components have established their 

own protocols or internal guidance for how to conduct reference checks 

for attorney and other applicants. 

Required Reference Checking for Department Attorneys. The 

Justice Management Division’s (JMD) Office of Attorney Recruitment and 

Management (OARM) is responsible for making suitability determinations 

for career attorney applicants across the Department.11 OARM has 

required hiring components to conduct both reference checking and 

vouchering for all new career attorney applicants since at least 1989.12 

The requirement includes both attorney applicants new to the 

Department and those already employed with another Department 

component. OARM reiterated this requirement in an April 13, 2010, 

memorandum from the OARM Director to the heads of all Department 

offices, boards, bureaus, and divisions.13 The memorandum, known as 

11 Under 28 C.F.R. §§ 0.15 and 0.19 (2011), the Attorney General’s general 

hiring authority may be delegated to the Deputy and Associate Attorneys General, who 

may re-delegate career attorney hiring authority to the Director of OARM. 

12 Vouchering is a type of suitability determination that seeks to verify an 

applicant’s basic employment history, reliability, and loyalty in an effort to determine an 

applicant’s overall suitability for federal service. We discuss vouchering more fully later 

in this section. 

13 Louis DeFalaise, Director, OARM, memorandum to Heads of Offices, Boards, 

Bureaus, and Divisions; Executive Officers and Attorney Recruitment Coordinators of 

Offices, Boards, Bureaus and Divisions; United States Attorneys; Director of the 

(Cont’d.) 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OARM Memorandum 2010-3, charges the hiring manager or selecting 

official with ensuring that a “thorough reference check” – which must 

address performance and conduct – is completed on each applicant 

before making a tentative employment offer. OARM Memorandum 2010­

3 also reminds components that the requirement to conduct reference 

checks is separate from other checks to determine an applicant’s overall 

suitability, such as vouchering. 

SAVE Council Employment Reference Questionnaire. A working 

group within the Attorney General’s Advisory Council for Savings and 

Efficiencies (SAVE Council) has drafted an Employment Reference 

Questionnaire for hiring officials Department-wide to use when 

contacting applicants’ references.14 The questionnaire instructions state 

that it is intended for use prior to extending a conditional job offer or 

initiating a background investigation. Questions range from subjective 

assessments of the applicant’s work performance (“How would you 

assess the candidate’s work performance?”) to suitability-related 

questions (“Do you have any reason to question the candidate’s loyalty to 

the United States?”).15 The questionnaire is intended to serve as a 

mandatory but baseline form for Department-wide use with applicants in 

all job series. Accompanying instructions provide hiring officials the 

option of creating additional questions relevant to the position 

advertised. The questionnaire was in the draft stage during our 

fieldwork and was awaiting approval from JMD for Department-wide use. 

In May 2012, JMD published the questionnaire in the Federal Register 

and requested comments by July 2, 2012. 

Working group members told us that they believed the 

questionnaire could improve the overall efficiency of the hiring process 

and save the Department time and money. They explained that the 

intent of the form was to discover detrimental issues related to an 

applicant’s performance that would not be uncovered due to agencies’ 

reciprocity agreements for employees who already hold a security 

Executive Office of United States Attorneys; and Bureau General Counsel, Reference 

Check Requirements for Attorney Hires, OARM Memorandum 2010-3 (April 13, 2010). 

14 The Attorney General established the SAVE Council in 2010 to identify costsavings measures within the Department to improve its efficiency. The Council 

identified the streamlining of suitability determinations as a potential cost-savings 

measure and convened an interagency working group in January 2011 led by the 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in coordination with the 

United States Marshals Service (USMS) to examine the issue. 

15 These questions were based on a March 2011 draft of the form, which had 

not been approved for use as of July 2012. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

4 
 

 

 

 

clearance.16 Additionally, by instructing hiring officials to forward the 

completed questionnaire to their component’s security office, working 

group members hoped to reduce duplication of effort between hiring 

officials and security personnel conducting background investigations. 

Reference Checking and Suitability Determination 

Reference checking differs from other hiring assessments used to 

screen job applicants by: (1) overall purpose, (2) the topics covered, 

(3) when in the hiring process it occurs, (4) who conducts the checks, 

and (5) the sources contacted. Below we define suitability 

determinations – including vouchering and background investigations – 

and explain how reference checking differs from those assessments. 

Suitability Determinations. The term “suitability” has a specific 

meaning in federal hiring. OPM defines suitability as “a set of criteria by 

which the character and conduct of applicants and employees are 

assessed to assure that their Federal employment will protect the 

integrity and promote the efficiency of the Federal service.”17 Whereas 

reference checks measure applicants’ job-related skills and qualifications 

to determine their organizational fit and ability to perform the job, 

suitability determinations measure applicants’ character traits and past 

conduct to determine whether they will be able to carry out the duties of 

a federal job with “integrity, efficiency, and effectiveness.”18 

The criteria for making suitability determinations for federal 

employment are in 5 C.F.R. part 731, which directs agencies to base 

their determinations on one or more of eight specific factors – including 

misconduct, criminal or dishonest conduct, intentional false statements, 

alcohol abuse, and illegal drug use.19 Part 731 also requires agencies to 

16 Under § 3001(d) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 

2004, Pub. L. No. 108-458, 118 Stat. 3638 (2004), background investigations and 

determinations completed by an authorized investigative agency or authorized 

adjudicative agency must be accepted by all agencies and be transferable to any other 

authorized investigative agency. Section 3001(d)(4) of the Act prohibits authorized 

agencies from conducting an investigation if a current investigation or clearance of 

equal level already exists or has been granted by another authorized adjudicative 

agency. 

17 OPM, End-to-End Hiring Initiative (undated), 39. 

18 OPM, Delegated Examining Operations Handbook: A Guide for Federal Agency 

Examining Officers (May 2007), 89. 

19 The eight specific suitability factors in 5 C.F.R. § 731.202 (2009) are: 

“(1) misconduct or negligence in employment; (2) criminal or dishonest conduct; 

(Cont’d.) 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

5 
 

 

 

 

consider seven additional factors when making suitability 

determinations, including the nature, seriousness, and recentness of the 

negative conduct.20 All applicants entering “covered positions” are 

required to undergo a suitability determination.21 

Suitability determinations differ from reference checking in several 

key ways beyond purpose and scope. First, the timing of a suitability 

determination distinguishes it from a reference check. Because 

suitability determinations are not used to guide selection decisions as 

reference checks are, they occur after an applicant’s references have 

been checked and the agency has extended a conditional job offer. 

Second, unlike reference checks – which ask individuals who have 

worked with the applicant (professional references) to describe the 

applicant’s job-related skills – suitability determinations may entail 

verifying an applicant’s basic residence, education, employment, and 

criminal history. Agency officials conducting a suitability determination 

contact sources beyond the applicant’s professional references, which 

could include the applicant’s personal acquaintances, neighbors, 

roommates, and relatives. Finally, suitability determinations are 

typically conducted by human resource personnel or security staff rather 

than a hiring official with knowledge of the required job competencies. 

Vouchering. One type of suitability determination, vouchering, 

seeks to determine an applicant’s overall suitability for federal service. 

(3) material, intentional false statement, or deception or fraud in examination or 

appointment; (4) refusal to furnish testimony as required by § 504; (5) alcohol abuse, 

without evidence of substantial rehabilitation, of a nature and duration that suggests 

that the applicant or appointee would be prevented from performing the duties of the 

position in question, or would constitute a direct threat to the property or safety of the 

applicant or appointee or others; (6) illegal use of narcotics, drugs, or other controlled 

substances without evidence of substantial rehabilitation; (7) knowing and willful 

engagement in acts or activities designed to overthrow the U.S. government by force; 

and (8) any statutory or regulatory bar which prevents the lawful employment of the 

person involved in the position in question.” 

20 The seven additional suitability considerations in 5 C.F.R. § 731.202 (2009) 

are: (1) the nature of the position for which the person is applying or in which the 

person is employed, (2) the nature and seriousness of the conduct, (3) the 

circumstances surrounding the conduct, (4) the recentness of the conduct, (5) the age 

of the person involved at the time of the conduct, (6) contributing societal conditions, 

and (7) the absence or presence of rehabilitation or efforts toward rehabilitation. 

21 5 C.F.R. § 731.101(b) (2011) defines a covered position as “a position in the 

competitive service, a position in the excepted service where the incumbent can be 

noncompetitively converted to the competitive service, and a career appointment to a 

position in the Senior Executive Service.” 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

6 
 

 

Vouchering is conducted using a form with standard questions 

corresponding to some of the suitability factors in 5 C.F.R. part 731. The 

form is used to record comments and responses from applicants’ 

references for a specified time period (typically the past 3 years). In the 

Department, a standard form – the Form OBD-236, Inquiry Regarding 

Suitability of Applicant (voucher form) – is commonly used. OARM’s 

April 13, 2010, memorandum contained a slightly different version of 

this form for attorney applicants. Both the Department’s and OARM’s 

voucher forms contain eight standard questions and require the 

individual conducting the inquiry to sign the form. (See Appendix I for 

the Department’s and OARM’s voucher forms.) The forms also require 

respondents to state their relationship to the applicant and years of the 

relation. 

Background Investigations. OPM requires applicants seeking 

employment in the civil service to undergo an investigation – commonly 

referred to as a security or “background investigation” – to establish their 

suitability for employment. A background investigation occurs after the 

hiring agency has checked an applicant’s references and often after, or 

concurrent with, a basic suitability determination and conditional job 

offer.22 A background investigation seeks information about an 

applicant’s employment, criminal, and personal history to evaluate 

“behavioral reliability, integrity, and personal adjustment” and determine 

whether there are any “historical facts that would interfere with an 

applicant’s ability to perform the job, including violations of statutes, 

regulations, or laws.”23 As described above, agency officials verify 

information about the applicant from sources beyond the applicant’s 

professional references. In cases where a waiver has been granted, the 

background investigation may not be initiated until after the employee 

has entered on duty.24 

OPM and MSPB Recommended Reference Check Practices 

OPM and MSPB guidance on reference checking includes who 

should conduct the checks, which references to contact, how many 

22 OPM’s requirement stems from the authority delegated by the President of the 

United States under 5 U.S.C. §§ 1104 and 3301 and Executive Order 10577. 

23 OPM, Assessment Decision Guide (undated), 45. 

24 Federal regulations permit agencies to grant waivers from the background 

investigation requirements for a limited period of time, allowing new applicants to begin 

working while their investigations are still in progress. However, the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI) requires a fully adjudicated background investigation before any 

applicant begins work. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

7 
 

 

references should be contacted, how they should be done, how long to 

spend on reference checking, and when they should occur.25 In addition, 

the agencies provide guidance on whether to obtain prior applicant 

permission, how to document and retain the information, how to 

incorporate reference checking into the hiring process, and how to ask 

the questions.26 Although the guidance is applicable to all federal 

positions, regardless of agency, reference checking itself is not 

mandatory in the Department except for new career attorney applicants. 

Specifically, OPM and MSPB advise: 

	 Have hiring managers familiar with the specific job competencies 

or the person who will supervise the new employee, not human 

resource personnel, conduct reference checks.27 

	 Contact recent supervisors (the MSPB-described “gold standard”) 

and other professional references, rather than personal references. 

When applicants request that their current supervisors not be 

contacted, OPM recommends seeking other references and asking 

again once a tentative offer has been extended. 

	 Contact additional individuals suggested by the applicant’s original 

references (additional references). 

	 Contact at least three references. Determine whether the results 

are consistent, and then check additional references if necessary to 

resolve incongruities. 

	 Use the telephone rather than written inquiries. 

	 Spend about 20 minutes on each reference or a few hours total. 

25 Most of the OPM recommendations we cite here are listed in OPM’s 

publication, Reference Checking (undated). 

26 Appendix II contains more detailed OPM and MSPB recommendations on how 

to compile and ask reference check questions. 

27 MSPB’s guidance stresses that those making hiring decisions should conduct 

the reference check. While OPM’s guidance overall favors the individual making the 

hiring decision be the reference checker (also referred to as the “selecting official” or 

hiring manager), it also allows for a human resource specialist to carry out this 

responsibility if the specialist is trained to do so. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 Conduct reference checks near the end of the hiring process, when 

a few top applicants remain in the pool, but before a conditional 

job offer is made. 

	 Obtain applicants’ permission before contacting references (for 

both applicant supplied and additional references), and inform 

references when applicants have given their permission. 

	 Document reference checks using a standard form. 

	 Ensure reference check materials are “stored and retained 

according to agency policy.”28 

	 Create standard operating procedures to incorporate reference 

checking into the hiring process. 

	 Ask specific, job-related, open-ended questions linked to the 

position’s required competencies.29 Ask the same set of minimum 

questions of all references for each applicant and each vacancy 

announcement. 

28 OPM, Reference Checking (undated). 

The General Records Schedules, issued by the Archivist of the United States to 

provide disposition authorization for records common to several or all federal agencies, 

do not address reference checks. There is also no agency-specific schedule approved by 

the Archivist that provides disposition authorization for reference checks. 

29 According to MSPB, requesting information about an applicant’s past job 

performance is legal, and reference checkers generally have a “qualified immunity” 

against charges of invasion of privacy provided their inquiries are job-related. 

Components may vet recommended questions through JMD’s (Human Resources) Labor 

and Employment Law Group. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

9 
 

 

 

PURPOSE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY OF THE OIG REVIEW 

Purpose 

The Office of the Inspector General conducted this review to assess 

whether and how components contacted job applicants’ references to 

evaluate their past performance when making hiring decisions. We 

examined the extent to which component hiring officials checked 

applicants’ references, whether policies exist to guide reference checking, 

and the reference check practices and specific questions cited by 

component hiring officials as most effective. This report is intended to 

provide component hiring officials with practical information to help 

them select the most qualified, capable job applicants. The reference 

check practices we highlight in this report are those that component 

hiring officials told us are useful and which conform to benchmarks and 

models suggested by OPM and MSPB. 

Scope 

Our review included 39 components that we determined had hired 

full-time employees nationwide during fiscal year (FY) 2010 within the 

competitive or excepted services or in any non-executive job series.30 The 

components are listed in Appendix III. We also collected information on 

Department reference check practices for attorney and special agent 

applicants because of the high level of visibility, responsibility, and 

potential for security risk associated with those positions in the 

Department. 

30 Competitive service positions, defined in 5 U.S.C. § 2102, are subject to the 

civil service laws passed by Congress to ensure that applicants and employees receive 

fair and equal treatment in the hiring process. According to OPM, most federal civilian 

positions are part of the competitive civil service, which requires that all applicants 

compete with each other in open competition. A basic principle of federal employment 

and the competitive service is that all candidates must meet the qualification 

requirements before they are hired. Competitive service jobs must be posted on 

usajobs.gov (OPM’s federal jobs website) whenever agencies are looking for applicants 

from the general public or outside their own agency. 

Excepted service positions, defined in 5 U.S.C. § 2103, are civil service positions 

that are not in the competitive service or the Senior Executive Service and are not 

required to be publicly advertised on usajobs.gov. According to OPM, some agencies – 

known as excepted service agencies – have their own hiring system and qualification 

requirements for filling internal vacancies because they are not subject to the same 

laws. Some federal agencies, such as the FBI and the Central Intelligence Agency, 

comprise only excepted service positions. Other agencies may have both types of 

positions. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

10 
 

We did not include in our review: (1) employees hired into the 

Senior Executive Service; (2) political appointees; (3) temporary, part-time 

employees; (4) internal hires within the same division of a component; or 

(5) Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) correctional officers.31 We also did 

not review component determinations of an employee’s basic 

qualifications. 

We conducted our fieldwork from February through September 

2011. 

Methodology 

Document Review 

We acquired publicly available guidance on reference checking 

from two federal sources outside the Department: OPM and MSPB. We 

also interviewed staff from both agencies associated with the published 

guidance. Non-binding recommendations and advisory reports from both 

agencies helped establish the benchmarks, models, and best practices 

cited in this report. 

Except for OARM’s guidance concerning new career attorney 

applicants, there are no Department regulations addressing reference 

checking. To identify reference check practices across the Department 

and instances in which the practices either conform to or differ from 

benchmarks and models suggested by OPM and MSPB, we reviewed and 

analyzed 39 components’ reference checking policies, documents, and 

the practices they described to us.32 These documents included tip 

31 In this report, the term “internal hires” includes employees from within the 

same division of the same component who are hired into lateral positions (at the same 

grade level) and promotions (at a higher grade level). Because hiring officials typically 

know those applicants already, there may be less value to conducting some reference 

checks. We did, however, include employees hired into lateral positions (lateral 

transfers) and promotions (merit promotions) in other divisions of the same component, 

the Department, and outside the Department. In addition, to avoid the appearance of a 

conflict, we excluded the OIG’s reference check procedures from this review. 

Another OIG report addressed hiring and screening of correctional officers found 

that references are not checked for correctional officers. See U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General, Enhanced Screening of BOP Correctional Officer 

Candidates Could Reduce Likelihood of Misconduct, Evaluation and Inspections Report I2011-002 (September 2011). 

32 Because not all of the 39 components have a clearly designated liaison office 

from which we could obtain the policies, documents, and described practices in our 

(Cont’d.) 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

11 
 

 

 

 

sheets, question lists, and standard operating procedures. We obtained 

this information through components’ responses to a Department-wide 

OIG data request. We asked components to provide copies of reference 

checking policies, guidance, questionnaires, and forms, and to answer 

written questions about their practices. Appendix III describes the data 

request and the responding components. 

Interviews and Telephone Survey 

We first interviewed component hiring officials, human resource 

managers, and security and suitability staff to understand reference 

check practices and guidance. We also considered areas of concern 

related to reference checking that those personnel identified. 

We then administered a telephone survey of selected component 

hiring officials from the 17 largest components. The purpose of the 

survey was to determine what processes components use to check 

references and what they find useful in the process. After selecting a 

random sample of FY 2010 hiring actions processed by those 17 

components, we requested contact information for the associated hiring 

officials from the components’ human resource offices. We asked hiring 

officials two initial screening questions – whether they participated in the 

hiring or selection of the new employee in the hiring action we had 

selected and whether they personally conducted reference checks for that 

employee. If they responded that they did not personally conduct the 

reference check, but another hiring official in the component did, then 

we contacted the other hiring official. Hiring officials from all 17 

components told us that their components conducted reference checks, 

whether it was the individual we first contacted or the person to whom 

they referred us. 

In total, we surveyed 88 hiring officials from the 17 components 

with the highest numbers of occupied positions during FY 2010.33 

According to National Finance Center data provided by JMD, these 

data request, we obtained these from components’ headquarters and human resource 

offices in most instances. 

33 The 17 components, in descending order by total number of occupied 

positions during FY 2010, were the: (1) BOP non-correctional officer personnel; (2) FBI; 

(3) United States Attorneys’ Offices; (4) Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA); 

(5) U.S. Marshals Service (USMS); (6) ATF; (7) Executive Office for Immigration Review 

(EOIR); (8) Civil Division; (9) U.S. Trustee Program; (10) JMD; (11) Criminal Division; 

(12) Antitrust Division; (13) Civil Rights Division; (14) Office of Justice Programs; 

(15) Environment and Natural Resources Division; (16) Tax Division; and (17) National 

Security Division. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

12 
 

 

 

17 components represented 83 percent of the Department’s occupied 

positions during FY 2010.34 The 88 hiring officials we interviewed had 

participated in the hiring of at least one new employee in FY 2010 and 

reported having firsthand experience checking references. We caution 

that these 88 hiring officials are not representative of the entire 

Department and do not constitute a statistically significant sample. We 

describe our sampling methodology further in Appendix IV. Appendix V 

includes a copy of the telephone survey instrument we used, and 

Appendix VI presents selected survey results beyond those we discuss in 

this report. 

To determine the number of hiring actions in FY 2010, we analyzed 

National Finance Center data for employees listed as occupying a 

position in FY 2010. Each personnel action for Department employees is 

assigned a “nature of action” code, defined by OPM as “the specific 

personnel action used to create or change a civilian personnel record.”35 

Because the nature of action codes include a wide range of 

personnel actions other than hiring a new employee (for example, step 

increases in pay), we eliminated those codes that did not correspond to 

hiring actions. We also eliminated the codes that corresponded to types 

of hiring actions that were not within our scope: (1) employees hired into 

the Senior Executive Service; (2) political appointees; (3) temporary, parttime employees; (4) internal hires within the same division of a 

component; (5) BOP correctional officers; and (6) OIG employees. 

Data Analysis 

We identified the components that provided written reference 

check policies, guidance, or questions, or described practices indicating 

that they generally check references. We analyzed components’ reference 

check policies, standard operating procedures, and descriptions of their 

reference check practices, and created a database of this information. 

We created a separate database of hiring officials’ responses to the 

questions in our telephone survey. 

We analyzed components’ responses to our data request and hiring 

officials’ responses to ascertain: (1) the extent to which components have 

34 This percentage is based on the FY 2010 occupied positions after we 

excluded: (1) employees hired into the Senior Executive Service; (2) political appointees; 

(3) temporary, part-time employees; (4) internal hires within the same division of a 

component; (5) BOP correctional officers; and (6) OIG employees. 

35 OPM, The Guide to Personnel Data Standards (Update 58, August 10, 2007), 

246. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

13 
written guidance on reference checking, (2) the content and scope of the 

guidance, (3) the frequency of reference checking, (4) the types of 

references contacted, (5) who makes the reference calls, (6) methods for 

contacting references, (7) at what point in the hiring process reference 

checks are conducted, and (8) the types of information sought during a 

reference check. We examined reference check practices and questions 

that hiring officials identified as useful. We also describe where 

components’ policies or practices differ for applicants by job series (such 

as attorneys and criminal investigators). 

Data and Methodology Limitations 

Because there is no Department requirement that hiring officials 

conduct, document, or retain records of reference checks other than 

OARM’s guidance concerning new career attorney applicants, we did not 

attempt to identify the number of individuals in the Department that 

were and were not reference checked in FY 2010 or other years. Nor 

could we identify all individuals who were not hired as a specific result of 

reference checking. Consequently, we do not comment on the actual 

prevalence of reference checking across the Department in this report. 

We emphasize that our methodology was not designed to provide a 

statistically significant conclusion. We based our analysis of 

components’ responses to our inquiries primarily on the information 

each component self-reported to the OIG. In some cases, we omitted 

from our analysis components that submitted incomplete information or 

whose responses were unclear. In addition, variations in reference check 

practices within components made it difficult to measure the extent to 

which policies are followed in practice. 

Rather than commenting on the prevalence of reference checking, 

in Part I of the report, we identify the components that provided written 

reference check policies, guidance, questions, or described reference 

check practices. We also describe where these components’ policies or 

practices differed for applicants by job series (such as attorneys and 

criminal investigators). However, these general descriptions do not 

account for variations in reference check practices within components, 

nor do they definitively indicate that references are or are not 

consistently checked. 

In Part II we present information about reference check practices 

from our telephone survey of 88 component hiring officials from the 

17 largest components to determine what processes components use to 

check references when they do so and what they find useful in the 

process. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

14 
 

 

RESULTS OF THE REVIEW 

PART I: DEPARTMENT REFERENCE CHECK POLICIES 

AND GUIDANCE 

In the absence of Department-level reference check 

policies, guidance varied among components. For nonlaw enforcement positions, reference check policies for 

new hires were inconsistent across the Department. Our 

review of components’ policies for non-law enforcement 

hires found only 3 of the 39 components in our review 

scope provided their hiring officials with clear written 

reference checking guidance that included positionspecific questions and addressed documentation of 

reference checks. For law enforcement positions, there 

were no policies requiring reference checks for new law 

enforcement applicants, and hiring managers told us 

that they did not conduct reference checks when hiring 

these new staff. Instead, components used other 

methods to assess the skills and aptitudes of new 

applicants for law enforcement positions. In addition, 

the two largest components, which made 63 percent of 

the hiring actions within our scope, did not conduct 

reference checks for most of their new employees. 

No Department policies addressed reference checking for all new 

hires. 

Although extensive information about the Department’s hiring 

process is posted on the Department’s intranet (DOJNet), as of July 

2012, no policies specifically addressed reference checking for all new 

hires across the Department.36 The JMD Director of Human Resources 

attributed the lack of Department reference checking guidance for 

general schedule employees, in part, to the fact that applicant selection 

and other human resource activities are not currently centralized 

functions in the Department, but rather have been delegated to the 

36 The only exception was OARM’s April 13, 2010, memorandum requiring 

reference checking and vouchering for new career attorney applicants. That 

memorandum has been available on DOJNet since April 2010, according to OARM. As 

of July 2012, we found that this memorandum was still available on DOJNet. In 

addition, DOJNet’s new Diversity section contained links to some reference checking 

guidance and sample questionnaires. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

15 
 

 

 

components. The Director also attributed the lack of Department-wide 

reference check guidance to a need for questions that are validated by 

research psychologists at OPM or elsewhere.37 The Director stated that 

some components had worked with OPM to develop their own validated 

questions. However, there was no list of approved or suggested 

questions to use during employment reference checks across the 

Department during the period of the OIG’s review. 

Reference check policies for assessing the job skills of potential new 

hires in non-law enforcement positions were inconsistent across the 

Department. 

Components’ reference check policies for new applicants were 

inconsistent across the Department. In response to our Departmentwide data request (described in Appendix III), 39 components provided a 

variety of written materials and descriptions of their reference check 

practices. Their submissions ranged from clear and comprehensive 

written policies to e-mail descriptions of reference check practices 

without accompanying written policies or other material. 

Of the 39 components, only 25 (64 percent) provided some form of 

written material – policies, guidance, tip or fact sheets, or 

questionnaires – that prescribed or suggested reference check practices, 

or provided specific reference check questions. Of these, only three 

provided clear, written reference check guidance that included both 

position-specific reference check questions for officials to ask references 

and addressed documentation requirements for reference checks. Nine 

components had general written policies or related guidance (such as tip 

sheets) with specific reference check questions for conducting reference 

checks on new employees, but this guidance was not always positionspecific and did not always address documentation requirements. 

Thirteen components provided a reference check questionnaire or form, 

but did not provide any additional written policy or guidance about when 

to use the guidance or form. These 13 components also described their 

informal protocols for checking references. The remaining 14 

components had no written policies, guidance, or forms, but verbally 

37 The term “validity” in this context means that the responses to questions 

about past performance are effective predictors of future behavior. According to OPM 

officials we interviewed, validation is part of an agency’s overall hiring process. OPM 

psychologists might analyze an agency’s reference check questions to determine how 

well they predict an applicant’s job performance (predictive validation) or what 

competencies are critical to a job and to what extent applicant selection assessments 

measure those competencies (content validation). OPM performs this function on a feefor-service basis. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

16 
   

     

     

     

     

     

described informal protocols for checking references. Figure 1 shows the 

types of reference check materials the 39 components provided. 

Figure 1: Types of Written Reference Check Materials 

Provided by 39 Components 

3

9

13

14

Clear, written guidance

and question list (3)

Written policy or guidance

and question list (9)

Question list only (13)

No written materials (14)

Note: We counted each component’s response once for this analysis even 

though some components specified that their reference check materials did 

not pertain to all position types. 

Source: Component responses to the OIG’s Department-wide data request. 

Our review of component policies found only three components provided 

their hiring officials with clear written reference check guidance. 

Of the 25 components that submitted copies of their written 

guidance to us, we found that only 3 provided hiring officials with clear, 

written guidance that: (1) included position-specific reference check 

questions that corresponded to the position’s required competencies, and 

(2) explained how to document reference checks and results. Including 

this information is consistent with OPM’s and MSPB’s recommendations 

for effective reference check practices. 

The remaining components’ submissions met just one of the two 

criteria above: 

1. Nine components had general written policies or related 

guidance for conducting reference checks on at least some new 

employees, including attorneys, and listed specific reference 

check questions. Seven of the nine components specified that 

the policy or guidance they provided applied to one or more 

position types. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Thirteen components had only a reference check questionnaire 

or form and did not provide any additional written policy or 

guidance about when to use it. These 13 components also 

described their informal protocols for checking references. 

Eleven of them responded to the specific questions in our data 

request with information indicating that they checked 

references. The other two components (the BOP and the Office 

of Legal Counsel) provided a reference check questionnaire and 

described their reference check practices, but we do not 

consider them to be among those components that regularly 

check references.38 

Of the 14 components that submitted no written guidance, 11 

explicitly stated they provided no written guidance to hiring officials. 

Three others did not state that, but provided no policies, guidance, or 

forms in response to our request. However, all 14 components described 

their informal protocols for checking references. Ten components 

indicated that they checked references, while the other four – the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation (FBI), U.S. National Central Bureau of Interpol 

(Interpol), JMD, and Office of Information Policy – described informal 

protocols for checking references, but we do not consider them to be 

among those components that regularly check references.39 

Managers in law enforcement components consistently told us that 

they did not conduct reference checks when hiring new staff in law 

enforcement positions. 

Most of the Department’s new hires into law enforcement and 

correctional officer positions were not reference checked during the 

hiring process. With some exceptions described elsewhere in this report, 

the Department’s four primary law enforcement components – the 

38 The BOP reported that it does not regularly check references for most 

positions (we discuss the exceptions in Part II), and the Office of Legal Counsel 

indicated it conducts reference checks but submitted only a voucher form, which we do 

not consider to be a reference check document. 

39 The FBI reported that it does not regularly check references for most 

positions (we discuss the exceptions in Part II). Information submitted by Interpol and 

JMD was not sufficiently clear to make a determination that they regularly conduct 

reference checks. The Office of Information Policy indicated that it conducts reference 

checks, but it submitted only a voucher form, which we do not consider to be a 

reference check document. Additionally, although the Consolidated Executive Office – a 

JMD component – provides human resource and other support services to certain 

Department offices, including the Office of Information Policy, it does not conduct 

reference checks for any Department offices. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

18 
 

 

 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA), the FBI, and the United States 

Marshals Service (USMS) – and the BOP did not check references of 

applicants to law enforcement and correctional officer positions.40 

Collectively, the hiring of applicants into the criminal investigator, deputy 

U.S. marshal, and correctional officer job series in these five components 

accounted for 38 percent of the Department’s total FY 2010 hiring 

actions within our scope (Table 1).41 

Table 1: FY 2010 Hiring Actions of Criminal Investigators, 

Correctional Officers, and Deputy U.S. Marshals 

Component 

Hiring Actions in Each Job Series 

Total 

Criminal 

Investigators 

GS-1811 

Correctional 

Officers 

GS-007 

Deputy U.S. 

Marshals 

GS-0082 

ATF 96 0 0 96 

DEA 225 0 0 225 

FBI 717 0 0 717 

USMS 207 0 522 729 

BOP 0 2,090 0 2,090 

Total 1,245 2,090 522 3,857 

Percentage of 

Department 

Hiring Actions 

(N=10,182) 12% 21% 5% 38% 

Notes: We determined there were 10,182 hiring actions based on National Finance 

Center data for employees listed as occupying a position in FY 2010. We further 

describe our method of determining hiring actions in the Methodology section of this 

report and in Appendix IV. 

Source: National Finance Center. 

40 In this report, we define law enforcement positions as those in the 1811 

Criminal Investigation Occupational Series, which includes special agents (criminal 

investigators) and deputy U.S. marshals. Deputy U.S. marshals hired under the 0082 

Deputy U.S. Marshal Occupational Series are also included in our definition. We do not 

include correctional officers in the 007 job series in the definition of law enforcement. 

41 During our fieldwork, the USMS’s Office of Security Policy had drafted a 

policy directive addressing reference checks for non-deputy U.S. marshal applicants. 

Although USMS security staff encouraged hiring officials to conduct reference checks 

for those applicants, under the new policy reference checks would only be required for 

applicants when a waiver of the pre-employment background investigation is requested. 

As of July 2012, the USMS reported that the policy was under review by its Office of 

General Counsel. The FBI’s Human Resources Division had drafted a similar policy for 

its non-law enforcement applicants that was under review in July 2012 (discussed 

below). 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

19 
Law enforcement components did not check references of new applicants 

for special agent and deputy U.S. marshal positions for several reasons. 

To determine why references of new law enforcement applicants 

were not being checked, we spoke with human resource and security 

officials at the FBI and the USMS. The primary reason cited by FBI 

officials for not conducting reference checks in the past for new special 

agent applicants was the FBI requirement that all applicants receive a 

fully adjudicated background investigation, which includes FBI contact 

with applicants’ references, prior to beginning work. Other reasons cited 

by FBI officials were: (1) concern over contacting applicants’ current 

supervisors early in the application process; (2) the large number of 

applicants and their references that would need to be checked; and 

(3) the additional required assessments unique to special agent 

applicants, such as cognitive ability and situational judgment tests. 

Additionally, FBI officials told us that it may be impractical for 

supervisors of new law enforcement applicants to check references 

because these applicants are not hired by the immediate office at which 

they will work. These applicants sign mobility agreements in which they 

consent to be relocated to a geographical location suited to the needs of 

the component when they are hired. 

Human resource officials we interviewed from the USMS described 

some of the same reasons for not checking law enforcement applicant 

references as did FBI officials. In addition to their reliance on 

background investigations, USMS officials told us that the large number 

of new law enforcement applicants could make reference checking 

infeasible. USMS officials described large pools of deputy U.S. marshal 

applicants, noting that the relatively small number of human resource 

staff responsible for processing them could not check applicants’ 

references without creating delays in the hiring and appointment 

process. 

In FY 2011, ATF began reference checking new special agents and nonlaw enforcement industry operations investigators on a limited basis. 

ATF reported that in FY 2011, it began checking references for its 

entry-level special agent and non-law enforcement industry operations 

investigator applicants on a limited basis. ATF began with a small group 

of entry-level agents and planned to begin reference checking industry 

operations investigator applicants during the next vacancy 

announcement, but ATF officials stated that the process slowed due to a 

hiring freeze. As of July 2012, ATF had not formalized the process into a 

written policy but had resumed checking references for entry-level 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

20 
 

special agents and industry operations investigators. ATF planned to 

begin crafting a policy after collecting information from the first 24 new 

hires. ATF was using a standard set of reference check questions for 

both special agents and industry operations investigators. 

According to ATF officials, the reference checks were an attempt to 

improve the hiring process and “weed out” problems with an applicant 

before initiating a background investigation. ATF officials told us the 

change would allow them to potentially save money on background 

investigations by identifying detrimental issues earlier in the hiring 

process. These officials also intended the reference checks to reduce 

employee turnover and improve hiring officials’ hiring choices. ATF 

officials also believed it would be beneficial to conduct reference checks 

on applicants who already possessed a valid security clearance and who 

would not ultimately receive a background investigation due to 

reciprocity agreements with other agencies. 

ATF, the DEA, and the USMS reported they checked references for merit 

promotion and internal law enforcement applicants, but the FBI did not. 

Although ATF, the DEA, and the USMS did not generally check 

references for new law enforcement applicants not currently employed by 

the government, they reported that they did check references for merit 

promotion and internal applicants for law enforcement positions. ATF 

officials stated that ATF also checked references of merit promotion 

applicants transferring from another agency, such as from the DEA or 

the FBI. In addition, as of April 2011, ATF’s Merit Promotion Board was 

discussing requiring reference checks for agents transferring within ATF, 

although ATF reported in July 2012 that due to the hiring freeze, no new 

agents outside ATF have been hired. According to human resource 

officials and managers from ATF, the DEA, and the USMS, these 

reference checks were conducted informally, were done by telephone, and 

did not generally require the use of standard forms or include required 

questions. 

FBI officials told us that Human Resources Division officials 

routinely call all GS-14 and GS-15 special agent applicants’ past 

supervisors to briefly verify the achievements listed on their 

applications. The applicants’ achievements are recited verbatim and 

responses are limited to “yes,” “no,” or “don’t know.”42 We note that this 

is the last step in a lengthy application/verification process the FBI has 

42 FBI, Special Agent Mid-Level Management System (SAMMS) Policy 

Implementation Guide (2011), 66. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

21 
 

established to ensure the applicant’s competency submissions are 

accurate, and that this process meets several strategies MSPB has 

suggested for reference checking (see Appendix II). However, MSPB also 

notes that reference checking should be “more than a formality” and 

emphasizes reference checking requires “[s]killful probing and comparing 

of information” to ensure that reference checking “produces more than a 

superficial evaluation” of the applicant.43 Similarly, OPM emphasizes the 

importance of “prob[ing] for more detailed information when clarification 

is needed” during a reference check.44 Based on these guidelines, we 

conclude that the FBI’s verifications, while valuable, do not meet the 

definition or full purpose of a reference check. 

Table 2 provides an overview of reference checking procedures 

employed by all four law enforcement components for both new and 

merit promotion applicants to law enforcement positions. 

43 MSPB, Reference Checking in Federal Hiring: Making the Call (2005), i, iv. 

44 OPM, Assessment Decision Guide (undated), 33. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

22 
 

 

 

Table 2: Reference Checking for Law Enforcement Applicants 

ATF DEA FBI USMS 

New hires YES – In FY 

2011 ATF 

implemented 

new procedures 

to reference 

check entrylevel special 

agents. 

NO – Had no 

reference check 

requirement for 

new special 

agents. 

NO – Had no 

reference check 

requirement for 

new special 

agents. 

NO – Had no 

reference check 

requirement for 

new deputy U.S. 

marshals. 

Merit YES – Although YES – Although NO – For YES – Although 

promotions not required 

and no 

standardized 

form was used, 

ATF managers 

called each 

other informally 

to discuss 

special agent 

applicants. This 

also occurred 

for applicants 

transferring to 

ATF from 

another agency, 

such as from 

the DEA or the 

FBI. 

not required 

and no 

standardized 

form was used, 

DEA managers 

called each 

other informally 

to discuss 

special agent 

applicants. 

promotions into 

GS-14 and 15 

positions, staff 

verified special 

agent 

applicants’ 

achievements 

by contacting 

their 

supervisors and 

reading 

verbatim what 

the special 

agents stated on 

their 

applications for 

verification. 

However, FBI 

officials told us 

this was not 

considered a 

reference check. 

not required 

and no 

standardized 

form was used, 

the USMS 

reported the 

U.S. Marshal in 

the hiring 

district can 

informally 

contact a 

deputy U.S. 

marshal 

applicant’s 

supervisor or 

someone else in 

the applicant’s 

workplace to 

discuss the 

applicant. 

Source: Human resource officials from ATF, the DEA, the FBI, and the USMS. 

Law enforcement components used methods other than reference 

checking to assess the skills and aptitudes of new law enforcement 

applicants. 

Although they did not always conduct reference checks, ATF, the 

DEA, the FBI, and the USMS used other methods that helped them 

evaluate the skills and aptitudes of new law enforcement applicants.45 

For example, the FBI special agent screening process entails two distinct 

phases of specialized testing consisting of logic, cognitive, and behavior 

45 While a separate evaluation of the special agent hiring process at each 

Department law enforcement component was not within the scope of this review, we 

describe the general process that the FBI uses. ATF, the DEA, and the USMS use 

variations of this process. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

23 
 

tests (Phase I); and a panel interview and written tests to measure 

competencies (Phase II).46 The panel interviewers do not receive the 

applicants’ résumés or applications, nor do they contact any outside 

references. Applicants who pass through those phases receive a 

conditional job offer and complete an SF-86, Questionnaire for National 

Security Positions. Final screening elements entail a background 

investigation, a polygraph, a medical and drug test, and a physical 

fitness test. Applicants who pass all of these elements are sent to the 

FBI Academy for 16 weeks of training. 

The FBI conducts a full field investigation at the Top Secret level 

on all applicants, including special agents. Background investigations 

include interviews of associates, references, and past and current 

employers and neighbors. Interviewers are required to collect 

information on a variety of topics, including character, reputation, 

loyalty, ability, and suitability. Interviewees are asked if they recommend 

the applicant for employment. However, although background 

investigations cover some of the performance-related subjects typically 

discussed during a reference check, FBI security officials acknowledged 

that the purpose of the background investigation is to determine 

applicants’ suitability for FBI employment and eligibility for access to 

national security information, not solely to evaluate past job 

performance. Background investigations also commence after the FBI 

has extended a conditional job offer and thus could not be used to guide 

a hiring decision as a reference check is intended to do. 

While background investigations and the other screening methods 

described above may demonstrate the applicant’s abilities and suitability 

for national security access, they do not replace a reference check. 

Reference checks provide valuable performance information directly from 

prior employers and others who have worked with the applicant. 

46 FBI officials also told us about two additional elements – a “meet and greet” 

with the local field office and a Headquarters Review Board, where the FBI selects the 

best applicants based on its current needs. 

DEA officials described additional checks for new special agent applicants, 

including employment verification supervisory interviews, conducted prior to a 

conditional job offer with applicants’ last or current supervisor, to determine their 

current employment standing. For new special agent applicants already in law 

enforcement positions, the DEA reported conducting additional checks through existing 

databases such as the National Crime Information Center. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

24 
 

 

 

 

 

 

The 2 largest components, which accounted for 63 percent of the 

Department’s 10,182 FY 2010 hiring actions within our scope, did 

not conduct reference checks for most new applicants. 

The Department’s two largest components – the BOP and the FBI – 

reported that they did not regularly check references for most new 

applicants, whether to law enforcement or non-law enforcement 

positions. Combined, the BOP and FBI accounted for 63 percent of the 

Department’s total hiring actions, in all job series, during FY 2010.47 

Both the BOP and FBI reported that they conducted reference checks of 

applicants already working within the component (the BOP) or applying 

for merit promotion (the FBI), with certain exceptions.48 

As discussed further below, the BOP has not required reference 

checks for new applicants, including correctional officers, since 2006. 

However, component officials reported conducting the checks for new 

chaplain applicants and for applicants already employed by the BOP. 

The FBI has never required reference checks for new applicants, 

including special agents, although FBI managers who hire new attorney 

applicants reported that they conducted the checks, and FBI policy does 

require reference checking for merit promotion applicants for positions 

other than attorneys and agents (described below). As of January 2012, 

the FBI reported that it had drafted a reference checking policy for nonlaw enforcement applicants. In September 2012, the FBI reported that 

its External Recruitment and Hiring Policy Implementation Guide will 

require reference checks for all external non-law enforcement selections 

and its Human Resources Division had drafted a reference check guide. 

47 To determine the 10,182 hiring actions, we eliminated from the National 

Finance Center database the types of hiring actions that were not within our scope: 

(1) employees hired into the Senior Executive Service; (2) political appointees; 

(3) temporary, part-time employees; (4) internal hires within the same division of a 

component; (5) BOP correctional officers; and (6) OIG employees. We explain our 

methodology further in Appendix IV. 

48 Under 5 C.F.R. part 335, federal agencies may promote certain types of 

employees provided they have developed a program designed to ensure a systematic 

selection method for promotion according to merit. Agency merit promotion programs 

must adhere to five requirements set forth in 5 C.F.R. § 335.103, including that each 

agency must establish merit promotion procedures that are available in writing to 

candidates. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

25 
The BOP discontinued its reference checking policy for all new applicants 

in 2006, but still checked references of some internal applicants. 

Although the BOP reported that it checked references for new 

chaplain applicants, security and human resource officials said that the 

BOP discontinued its general reference checking policy for new 

applicants in 2006. According to BOP officials, before 2006, reference 

checks had been conducted by a contractor. Over time, human resource 

officials noticed the checks did not produce enough useful information, 

due in large part to employers refusing to provide requested information 

beyond confirming applicants’ employment dates. Consequently, the 

BOP concluded that the checks were not worth the time and effort spent 

to conduct them and withdrew the requirement. BOP officials stated, 

however, that discontinuation of the policy did not prohibit the practice 

of checking references of new applicants and suggested these checks 

may still occur. However, they were unsure as to the extent of the 

practice across the BOP. 

BOP human resource officials told us that reference checking did 

occur for applicants already employed by the BOP. Although they were 

unable to quantify the extent to which this internal reference checking 

was practiced throughout the BOP, the officials said it was common and 

that many reference check forms were submitted to their office. In our 

telephone survey, wardens in each of the 10 institutions we contacted 

indicated that references were checked at least “sometimes” for internal 

applicants. 

The FBI has never had a reference checking policy for new applicants, 

although it requires reference checking for certain merit promotion 

applicants. 

FBI security and human resource officials we interviewed told us 

that the FBI had never required reference checks in the past for new 

applicants and that reference checking was infrequently conducted. FBI 

field office managers said that reference checks were sometimes 

performed, and the two FBI hiring officials we contacted for the telephone 

survey reported checking references of new applicants. As described 

below, the FBI has drafted a new reference check policy for non-law 

enforcement applicants, but that policy was not yet final. 

FBI Merit Promotion Applicants. The FBI’s written guidance on 

applicants for merit promotions directs hiring officials to conduct 

reference checks with applicants’ knowledge and approval. According to 

the guidance, “selecting officials should contact current or former 

supervisors to obtain important information on the candidate’s job 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

26 
 

 

 

performance, functional knowledge and abilities, technical skills and 

potential for increased responsibility.”49 According to the FBI, it also 

ensures that its onboard non-law enforcement applicants applying to 

FBI’s merit promotion vacancy announcements possess a “Successful” 

performance rating. The guidance applies to all FBI employees except 

special agents, attorneys, and those in the Senior Executive Service.50 

New FBI Attorney Applicants. Managers within the FBI’s Offices of 

General Counsel and Professional Responsibility reported conducting 

reference checks for new attorney applicants in accordance with OARM 

requirements. Those officials told us that although there were no 

regulations or guidelines addressing reference checks, the deputies or 

unit chiefs in the division with the vacancy checked an applicant’s 

references by telephone. We found that questions on reference checking 

forms used by the Office of General Counsel inquired about applicants’ 

character, work performance, ability to handle stress, and career goals. 

The reference check practices for new FBI attorney applicants appeared 

to mirror OPM’s and MSPB’s recommendations. 

New FBI Policy Requiring Reference Checks. FBI human resource 

managers told us that because of the FBI’s participation in the SAVE 

Council initiative, the FBI was considering requiring new applicant 

reference checks for non-law enforcement applicants prior to making a 

conditional job offer. The impetus for the change, according to FBI 

officials, was to ensure that applicants are screened for technical 

competency prior to expending funds on background investigations. FBI 

officials we interviewed supported the change, citing a need for hiring 

officials to conduct reference checks to make more informed hiring 

decisions. For example, an FBI security manager described several 

instances of hiring officials asking the security office if they could rescind 

a conditional job offer because they had changed their minds about 

hiring an applicant after discovering during the background investigation 

process that the applicant was not suitable for the job. 

49 FBI, Merit Promotion and Placement Plan (October 22, 2008), 9. In September 

2012, the FBI reported that this document was being revised to include a provision for 

mandatory reference checks for all internal non-law enforcement selections. The FBI 

also reported that: (1) its External Recruitment and Hiring Policy Implementation 

Guide will require hiring managers to conduct reference checks for all external non-law 

enforcement selections and (2) its Human Resources Division drafted an Applicant 

Technical Reference Check Guide that will supplement both documents during the 

selection phase. 

50 The FBI’s Merit Promotion and Placement Plan also excludes employees in the 

Executive Level or Senior Level. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

27 
 

Later in our fieldwork, the FBI began drafting a reference check 

policy that it planned to implement in 2012.51 As of July 2012, an FBI 

human resource manager told us that the reference check policy had 

been drafted, stakeholder feedback had been received, and the policy was 

undergoing an executive review. The FBI planned to complete the 

reference check policy by the end of 2012, pending review by its 

Corporate Policy Office. 

Conclusion 

Although the majority of components submitted materials or 

described practices indicating that they conducted reference checks, 

reference checking was inconsistent among the components, and very 

few components required the practice in written policy. We believe 

inconsistency in component policies and practices increases the risk that 

components are not uniformly and thoroughly screening applicants. It 

also increases the risk that hiring officials may not collect all information 

from references that may be useful in a hiring decision, that information 

from references of similarly qualified applicants applying for the same 

position may not be collected consistently, and that hiring officials may 

not bother to check references. Consequently, components may 

unknowingly hire individuals who cannot perform the job well or whose 

talents and interests do not support the component’s mission and 

culture. 

The primary law enforcement components of the Department – 

ATF, the DEA, the FBI, and the USMS – employed a wide range of 

assessment and verification methods, rather than reference checking, to 

evaluate the skills and aptitudes of new applicants to law enforcement 

positions. These methods included a background investigation and up to 

16 weeks of training at a federal law enforcement training center. 

However, background investigations meant to determine applicants’ 

suitability for employment and eligibility to hold a security clearance do 

not provide information about applicants’ work skills and aptitudes in 

time to inform a hiring decision. Three of the four law enforcement 

components had made or planned changes to their reference checking 

processes by the end of our review period: ATF began reference checking 

new entry-level special agents in FY 2011, and its Merit Promotion Board 

was discussing requiring reference checks for agents transferring within 

ATF. The FBI and the USMS had each drafted policies addressing 

reference checks for non-law enforcement applicants; the FBI’s policy 

51 We did not review the FBI’s draft reference checking policy because it was not 

completed during our fieldwork. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

28 
 

would require the checks prior to commencing a background 

investigation, whereas the USMS’s policy would only require the checks 

when a waiver of the required pre-employment background investigation 

is requested. 

Finally, the BOP’s and the FBI’s lack of policies requiring reference 

checks for most new hiring actions allowed managers to make hiring 

decisions without a complete picture of an applicant’s qualifications, 

including the applicant’s performance history and organizational fit. 

Specifically, hiring managers who did not check references lacked the 

benefit of pre-selection input from references who knew the applicant. 

That input includes situational examples of an applicant’s performance 

and behavior described by former managers, and verification of the jobrelated claims an applicant made on a résumé or in an interview. We 

believe that decisions to hire new employees would benefit from 

incorporating reference checking into the hiring process, as OPM and 

MSPB recommend. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

29 
 

 

 

PART II: REFERENCE CHECK PRACTICES AND RELATED FEDERAL 

GOVERNMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 

Reference check practices varied considerably within 

components. Hiring officials we interviewed who told us 

they generally conducted reference checks for new 

applicants into non-law enforcement positions described 

the benefits they believed conducting the checks 

provided. As is recommended by OPM and MSPB, most 

hiring officials who conducted reference checks were 

managers who contacted professional references, 

contacted references in addition to those provided by 

the applicant, and contacted references by telephone. 

However, we found that these hiring officials generally 

did not conduct reference checks at the most useful 

point in the hiring process, did not ask position-specific 

questions, and did not obtain applicants’ permission 

before contacting additional references. Further, some 

components erroneously conducted vouchering in lieu of 

a reference check. Finally, although hiring officials we 

interviewed reported that they usually conducted 

reference checks, they were often uncertain of their 

component’s reference checking expectations and 

allowable practices. 

In total, 33 of the 39 components we reviewed (85 percent) 

indicated that they generally check references. Of the remaining six 

components, two (the BOP and the FBI) responded that they did not 

regularly check references for most new applicants, with the exceptions 

we discussed above. Two other components (the Office of Legal Counsel 

and the Office of Information Policy) reported that they conducted 

reference checks but submitted only a voucher form to us, which is not a 

reference check. Information provided by the two remaining components 

(JMD and Interpol) was insufficiently clear for us to determine whether 

they regularly conducted reference checks. Of the 33 components that 

indicated that they generally check references, just 7 (21 percent) 

specifically required that reference checks be conducted for at least some 

position types.52 

52 The seven components that required reference checks were the Civil Rights 

Division, EOIR, National Security Division, OARM, Office of Public Affairs, Tax Division, 

and the U.S. Trustee Program. OARM differed from the other components in that its 

requirement for attorney reference checking was Department-wide. Of the seven 

components, five specified the checks were required for attorneys. Others specified 

(Cont’d.) 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

30 
 

   

Hiring officials who reference checked new non-law enforcement 

applicants told us they believed their components benefited from 

the practice. 

To determine Department hiring officials’ reference checking 

practices and perceptions, we surveyed 88 hiring officials who conducted 

reference checks for applicants to non-law enforcement positions. These 

officials said they viewed the practice as an important, useful part of 

their hiring process. This was so regardless of whether their own 

component had an explicit requirement that they conduct reference 

checks, which only seven components did. 

Hiring officials reported conducting reference checks regularly. 

Eighty hiring officials (91 percent) responded that their office 

checked references “always” or “most of the time” when making a hiring 

decision. All but one of the hiring officials told us their office at least 

“sometimes” checked references. Figure 2 shows a distribution of the 

regularity with which hiring officials reported their office checked 

references. 

Figure 2: Reference Checking Among 

Hiring Officials We Surveyed 

73% (64)

18% (16)

8% (7)

1% (1) Always

Most of the

time

Sometimes

Don't know

Source: Telephone survey. 

non-attorney staff; temporary, term, career-conditional, and student appointments; 

staff, interns, and volunteers; and one component did not specify a position type. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

31 
Hiring officials viewed reference checking as an important part of the 

hiring process and described the benefits they believed the checks 

provided. 

Component hiring officials told us they believed that reference 

checking was a critical part of the hiring process because it provided a 

more complete picture of an applicant’s ability to perform the job and 

likely fit within the organization. Officials related instances in which 

information collected through reference checks had helped them make 

more informed hiring decisions. Overall, hiring officials found reference 

checking to be neither more nor less effective than other performance 

assessment tools such as interviews, work evaluations, or writing 

samples. 

Hiring officials said reference checks have helped them make more 

discerning hiring decisions because they provided information beyond 

what the applicants themselves submitted or represented. For example, 

reference checks have revealed where applicants appeared to have 

exaggerated their accomplishments or qualifications. Hiring officials 

cited instances of receiving information from a reference that 

contradicted what the applicant provided. Some also identified cases 

where the applicant lacked the needed job qualifications or where the 

reference described poor performance. Hiring officials cited all of these 

as reasons for re-considering or not selecting the applicant. Another 

hiring official spoke of using reference checks as a means of moving an 

applicant to (or from) the top of a list of best qualified applicants. 

Some hiring officials we interviewed also stressed the importance of 

“organizational fit” – the alignment of the applicant’s interests, character, 

work performance, and career goals with the office where the applicant 

will work – and explained how they used reference checking to ascertain 

this. For example, one hiring official said, “You wouldn’t hire an 

applicant who enjoys litigation and working in court when the position 

they are being considered for simply requires writing.” In another case 

illustrating the importance of an applicant’s character aligning with office 

needs, a hiring official noted the importance of attorney applicants being 

highly regarded by judges before whom they appeared – information the 

hiring official could only determine from speaking with those references. 

The majority – 89 percent – of hiring officials we interviewed found 

reference checking “very effective” or “somewhat effective” in making an 

informed hiring decision. Three percent of the hiring officials said 

reference checking was “not very effective.” The remaining 8 percent fell 

into an “other” category whose responses varied from “critical” to 

“marginally effective.” 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

32 
   

   

     

Additionally, when asked about the effectiveness of reference 

checking compared with other assessment tools in the hiring process, 

39 percent of the 88 hiring officials found reference checking to be “about 

the same” as other assessment tools used to select the best applicant. 

About the same percentage of hiring officials found reference checking 

“more or somewhat more effective” than other assessment tools 

(27 percent) as those who found it “less effective” (23 percent). Figure 3 

shows how hiring officials ranked reference checking compared to other 

hiring assessment tools such as interviews, performance evaluations, or 

writing samples. 

Figure 3: Hiring Officials’ Perceptions of Reference Checking 

Effectiveness Compared with Other Hiring Assessment Tools 

10

20

34

9

15

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Other

Less effective

About the same

Somewhat more effective

More effective

Number of Hiring Officials

Effectiveness Comparison

Note: Responses in the “other” category were those that did not answer 

the question. For example, hiring officials said reference checking was 

an important part of the process but did not rank it compared to other 

tools or responded that it depended on the reference and the 

information provided. 

Source: Telephone survey. 

Although component hiring officials told us that they checked 

applicants’ references regularly and that they viewed reference checking 

as an important part of the hiring process, some of the reference check 

practices they described following were inconsistent with OPM’s and 

MSPB’s recommended practices. Below, we first describe the 

consistencies, then the inconsistencies. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

33 
 

 

As recommended by OPM and MSPB, most hiring officials who 

conducted reference checks were managers who contacted 

professional references, contacted references in addition to those 

provided by the applicant, and contacted references by telephone. 

Our survey of 88 hiring officials from the 17 largest components 

found that components’ practices for reference checking were consistent 

with many practices recommended by OPM and MSPB.53 Specifically, we 

found consistency with regard to who should conduct reference checks; 

the type and number of references that should be contacted; how 

references should be contacted; and how much time hiring officials 

should spend checking references. We describe below how components 

and hiring officials employed reference check practices recommended by 

OPM and MSPB.54 We also describe additional reference check practices 

that the hiring officials cited as useful. 

Components and hiring officials indicated that individuals who most 

often conducted reference checks were also involved in the hiring 

process. 

Components and hiring officials both indicated that supervisors, 

managers, and hiring officials – not human resource personnel – 

generally conducted reference checks, as OPM and MSPB recommend. 

MSPB’s guidance states that reference checking should not be delegated 

to administrative assistants, less experienced employees, or human 

resource personnel, unless they are familiar with the job and work 

environment. Several components’ policies explicitly delegated 

responsibility for conducting reference checks to hiring officials and 

other employees involved in the hiring process.55 

The majority of component officials responding to our data request 

on behalf of their components told us that hiring officials or others 

involved in applicant selection were the individuals who conducted 

53 We based our analysis on the reference checking practices described in 

component policies, components’ responses to questions in our data request, and in 

telephone interviews with hiring managers. 

54 The Background section of this report describes each practice recommended 

by OPM and MSPB more fully. 

55 MSPB’s guidance stresses that those making hiring decisions should conduct 

the reference check. While OPM’s guidance overall favors the individual making the 

hiring decision be the reference checker (also referred to as the selecting official or 

hiring manager), it also allows for a human resource specialist to carry out this 

responsibility if the specialist is trained to do so. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

34 
 

       

       

     

       

         

     

reference checks. Specifically, 20 components (51 percent) identified the 

hiring manager or selecting official as the person conducting reference 

checks, and 14 components (36 percent) identified supervisors or 

managers as doing so.56 Only seven components (18 percent) identified 

administrative or human resource staff as conducting reference checks, 

though it was unclear whether the administrative staff referred to were 

checking references of other administrative employee applicants or were 

doing so for applicants to unrelated job series. Figure 4 shows the 

position types of employees that components identified as their reference 

checkers. 

Figure 4: Employees Conducting 

Reference Checks by Position Type 

20

14

7

4

3

0 5 10 15 20 25

Hiring manager, selecting official, or

other lead in hiring process

General supervisor or manager

Administrative or human resource staff

Members of hiring committee or panel

Person who interviewed candidate

Components

Position Type

Note: The number of components in the chart exceeds 39 because some 

components mentioned more than one position type in their responses. 

Source: Component responses to the OIG’s Department-wide data request. 

Five components explicitly addressed the delegation of reference 

checking responsibilities in their policies and responses. We believe that 

having such procedures in place can help components better conduct 

reference checks by widening the pool of known reference checkers; by 

making the reference checking process more efficient, particularly when 

the hiring official is unavailable or busy with other priorities; and by 

identifying who to train and make familiar with reference checking 

guidelines. 

56 Some components mentioned more than one type of individual who 

conducted reference checks. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

35 
 

 

 

Components and hiring officials contacted professional references. 

Component and hiring official practices generally mirrored OPM 

and MSPB recommendations that hiring officials contact professional 

references, particularly recent supervisors, which are the MSPBdescribed “gold standard” of references. Several components also 

provided guidance to hiring officials on what to do when a supervisor 

reference cannot be contacted. 

A clear majority of components relied on supervisor reference 

checks. Nearly three-quarters of components (29 of 39) reported 

contacting applicants’ supervisors as references. Of those 29 

components, 15 (52 percent) reported that they also contacted other 

types of references, such as colleagues or personal references.57 The 

remaining components cited personal references such as friends and 

associates or did not specify a reference type. Figure 5 shows the types 

of references that components reported they contacted. 

Figure 5: Types of References Checked by Components 

   

Components

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

29

10 8 7

Professional ‐ Personal ‐ Professional ‐ Did not specify

supervisors friends/associates peers,

colleagues,

coworkers,

subordinates

Reference Types

Note: The number of components in the chart exceeds 39 because some 

components listed more than one type of reference. 

Source: Component responses to the OIG’s Department-wide data request. 

57 Three components employing attorneys also listed “clients” (the Executive 

Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) and the Environment and Natural Resources 

Division) and “judges and opposing counsel” (the Criminal Division) as potential 

references. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

36 
 

 

 

MSPB suggests seeking a mix of immediate and second-level 

supervisors, peers, former coworkers, and subordinates (if applicable) as 

supplements or, if necessary, substitutes for the supervisory perspective. 

According to MSPB, contacting references who define a wide range of 

professional relationships with the applicant can help hiring officials 

better understand the applicant’s overall performance and behavior on 

the job from the perspective of, for example, the applicant’s subordinates 

and supervisors. One MSPB researcher we interviewed likened this 

approach to “360-degree assessments,” which he said some reference 

checking has begun to resemble.58 According to the MSPB researcher, 

awareness of the availability and utility of contacting different types of 

professional references, and when to do so, can enhance the value of 

reference checks. 

When applicants request that their current supervisors not be 

contacted, OPM recommends seeking other references and asking again 

once a tentative offer has been extended. Similarly, MSPB encourages 

hiring officials not to settle for information from fewer references and not 

to be deterred from completing reference checks by unreachable 

references or time constraints. In their reference check guidance, two 

components included direction for hiring officials to take when an 

applicant’s supervisor cannot be contacted or is unwilling to provide 

information, an applicant refuses to provide a supervisor’s name, or the 

supervisor is unavailable. We believe this guidance could prove 

beneficial to other components as well. 

Hiring officials reported checking a variety of different references – 

including supervisors, colleagues, academic contacts, and personal 

character references. Almost half (45 percent) of the hiring officials we 

interviewed reported that their office had asked applicants to provide 

professional references that included supervisors and colleagues. 

Another 19 percent of hiring officials stated that their offices had asked 

applicants to provide a combination of personal, professional, and 

academic references. The remaining 36 percent did not know or did not 

specify the types of references their offices had asked references to 

provide.59 When we asked hiring officials which types of references they 

58 Typically associated with performance appraisals, 360-degree assessments go 

beyond input from supervisors to include input from peers, customers, subordinates, 

and others. OPM, Performance Management Practitioner Series, 360-Degree 

Assessment: An Overview, Performance Management and Incentive Awards Division 

(1997), 1. 

59 The information we requested from components and hiring officials about the 

types of references contacted differed. Whereas we asked components to describe only 

(Cont’d.) 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

37 
 

considered to be most useful, they named supervisors, professional 

references, recent references, and individuals who receive work products 

from the applicant. 

Hiring officials requested and contacted references in addition to those 

provided by the applicant. 

In addition to contacting the references that applicants provided, 

component hiring officials frequently asked references for the names of 

additional references and then contacted those individuals for 

information on the applicant, a practice encouraged by MSPB. MSPB 

recommends that hiring officials ask references at the end of the 

reference check discussion for more contacts, when the questions are 

fresh in their mind and they can best determine who else could answer 

them well. Further, about two-thirds of the hiring officials we 

interviewed contacted individuals they personally knew at the applicant’s 

organization to inquire about applicants. 

Fifty-six of the hiring officials we interviewed (64 percent) told us 

that they requested names of additional references at least “sometimes.” 

All but 3 of the 56 said they then contacted those references at least 

“sometimes,” although few obtained the applicant’s prior permission, as 

discussed in the next section.60 Hiring officials from at least three 

components regularly requested references in addition to those provided 

by applicants or had guidance encouraging reference checkers to do so. 

This practice increases the possibility of discovering useful information 

from references because information is collected from the individuals 

who can best evaluate applicants’ workplace performance and behavior. 

The reasons hiring officials cited for requesting additional 

references included: 

 the applicant’s supervisor is not familiar with the applicant’s daily 

work, 

 the applicant’s supervisor or listed reference is unreachable, 

 the reference cannot verify information that the applicant provided, 

 the reference the applicant provided is not a supervisor, 

which references were typically contacted, we asked hiring officials what types and how 

many references their offices asked applicants to provide, whether their offices typically 

contacted all references an applicant provided, and if not, which reference types they 

considered to be most valid. 

60 Of the remaining three hiring officials, one told us that he did not contact 

these additional references, and two did not answer the question. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

38 
 a reference volunteers an additional name, 

 to obtain additional information, and 

 to reconcile contradictory information. 

Another common reference checking practice among component 

hiring officials was contacting individuals they personally knew at the 

applicants’ current or former workplace to seek a reference. Fifty-nine of 

the hiring officials we interviewed (67 percent) told us they were “very 

likely” or “somewhat likely” to contact someone they personally knew for 

a reference on the applicant. Some hiring officials told us that their 

supervisors encouraged them to do this, particularly in small career 

fields or jurisdictions where applicants and contacts are likely to know 

each other. However, as discussed in the next section, few of those 

hiring officials followed MSPB’s and OPM’s recommendation to seek 

applicants’ permission before making these contacts. 

Half (59 percent) said calling someone they personally knew at an 

applicant’s current or former workplace was reliable or effective in 

obtaining information about the applicant’s performance. Some 

commented that information given by people they personally knew was 

often more reliable than that from individuals the applicant had 

furnished as references because the officials knew and trusted the 

contact’s judgment. Others added that the reliability and effectiveness of 

the reference depends on how well the reference knew the person and 

how closely that person worked with the applicant. Some specifically 

told us that contacting someone they knew for a reference was a positive 

experience that yielded useful information. 

Due to the frequency of this practice among component hiring 

officials, we asked these officials whether they considered the information 

they receive from their personal contacts to be off the record. Two-thirds 

of the 59 officials who said they were likely to contact individuals they 

personally knew for a reference (39, or 66 percent) responded that they 

would not consider their reference check conversation with a personal 

contact about an applicant to be off the record, whereas 20 of the 59 

(34 percent) said they would. 

Despite the frequency of hiring officials using personal contacts as 

references and the benefits perceived by those who do so, we did not find 

any written component reference checking guidance that addressed this 

issue. Although MSPB encourages hiring officials to contact multiple 

references – including those not provided by the applicant – neither 

MSPB nor OPM discusses using hiring officials’ personal contacts as 

references. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

39 
 

 

The number of references hiring officials contacted for each applicant 

varied. 

Hiring officials told us that the number of references they 

contacted depended on factors such as the number of references 

provided by the applicant and what the references first contacted by the 

hiring official said about the applicant. Generally, practices described to 

us by hiring officials were consistent with OPM and MSPB 

recommendations to contact at least three references, and more if 

responses are inconsistent or references cannot be reached. 

Of the 88 hiring officials we surveyed, 35 (40 percent) told us that 

they contacted all references provided by an applicant, whereas 22 

(25 percent) said they did not contact all references. Of the 22 officials 

who stated they did not contact all the references provided by an 

applicant, most (18 officials, or 82 percent) told us they considered 

current and former supervisors to be the most useful. Five other hiring 

officials cited references who received work products from the applicant 

and recent references as being the most useful.61 

Of the remaining 31 hiring officials we surveyed, 29 told us that 

the number of references contacted depended on specific circumstances, 

and the other 2 hiring officials did not know whether all references were 

contacted. Ten officials said they based the number of references they 

contacted on the nature of information provided by the references. If a 

hiring official received positive information about the applicant in the 

first two reference calls, the official might choose not to call any others. 

In contrast, if a hiring official received negative or conflicting information, 

the official might want to contact other references to verify or dispute the 

information. 

Components and hiring officials believed the telephone was the most 

reliable method to contact references. 

Most components – 31 of 39 (79 percent) – reported the telephone 

as the “most reliable method” for reference checking, as OPM and MSPB 

recommend. Three components (8 percent) identified use of both the 

telephone and e-mail as most reliable. The remaining five components 

did not specify. Hiring officials’ responses were similar to components’ in 

that most – 55 of 88 (63 percent) – identified the telephone as their 

primary means of contacting references. Using the telephone to contact 

61 The number of reasons given exceeds the number of hiring officials who did 

not contact all references because one hiring official commented on two topics. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

40 
 

 

 

references allowed hiring officials to establish a rapport with the 

reference provider and engage in a conversation so that they could 

question and probe when more information or clarification was needed. 

About one-third of the hiring officials we interviewed (31 officials, 

or 35 percent) told us they at least “sometimes” used methods other than 

the telephone to contact references. They told us they used e-mail to 

make initial contact with a reference and set up a telephone 

conversation, to contact a reference if they have not been reachable by 

telephone, and to ask follow-up questions.62 Face-to-face meetings were 

used if the reference was in close proximity, such as in the same 

building. Three hiring officials we interviewed said that they preferred to 

conduct reference check conversations in face-to-face meetings.63 

Hiring officials typically spent about 20 minutes on a reference call and a 

few hours in total conducting reference checks. 

Component hiring officials’ practices were generally consistent with 

OPM and MSPB recommendations to spend about 20 minutes on a 

reference check or a few hours for all reference checks. Hiring officials 

we interviewed told us that conducting individual reference checks took 

from 5 to 45 minutes and that the total time for contacting all references 

for an applicant did not exceed 4 workdays. Some hiring officials 

commented that the most time-consuming part of reference checking was 

actually making contact with a reference. 

However, some hiring officials told us they spent only 5 minutes on 

each reference check, which may not be sufficient time for the officials to 

probe for detailed information and examples about an applicant’s 

performance or abilities. Hallmarks of a thorough reference check 

include asking probing, open-ended questions and requesting 

clarification and follow-up where needed, according to OPM and MSPB. 

62 In its 2005 report, MSPB acknowledged the increased role of e-mail in 

reference checking but cautioned that relying on e-mail alone reduces the value of 

reference checking because it prevents a truly interactive conversation. 

63 Although MSPB does not discuss face-to-face reference check conversations, 

it mentions videoconferencing as potentially holding promise for useful reference 

checking since hiring officials can observe non-verbal cues. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

41 
 

 

 

 

 

Hiring officials generally did not follow OPM and MSPB guidance on 

when to conduct reference checks in the hiring process, on 

obtaining applicants’ permission before contacting additional 

references, and on documenting reference checks. 

While the practices described previously were consistent with OPM 

and MSPB recommendations, the practices described below were 

inconsistent with practices recommended by OPM and MSPB. We found 

inconsistencies regarding when in the hiring process references are 

checked, whether applicants’ permission is obtained before contacting 

references not provided by the applicant, and whether reference checks 

are documented using a standard form. 

Reference checks were generally not conducted at the recommended 

point in the hiring process. 

Reference checks of applicants were not generally being done 

during the “opportune” time recommended by OPM and MSPB, which is 

near the end of the hiring process when a few top applicants remain in 

the pool but before a conditional job offer has been made. MSPB notes, 

“If reference checking is done too early, it may seem more fair to 

applicants, but can become prohibitive in terms of resources. If it is 

done too late, the results may not actually inform a hiring decision.”64 

MSPB specifically cautions against checking references for only the final 

applicant because the goal of reference checking is to verify information 

provided by the applicant, collect additional information from references, 

and use that information in the hiring decision. 

Less than one-third of the component responses indicated they 

checked references within the time frame recommended by OPM and 

MSPB. Of the 33 components that regularly conducted reference checks 

and described when they conducted the checks, 25 checked references 

between the conclusion of applicant interviews and selecting a final, 

successful applicant for at least one position type.65 Of these 25 

64 MSPB, Reference Checking in Federal Hiring: Making the Call (2005), 27. 

65 For this analysis, we excluded 6 of the 39 components in our review scope 

based on their responses. Three components responded that they did not generally 

check new applicants’ references (the BOP, FBI, and Office of Legal Counsel, which 

submitted only a vouchering form). Information provided by three other components 

was not sufficiently clear to make a determination that reference checking was 

definitively conducted (JMD, the U.S. National Central Bureau of Interpol, and Office of 

Information and Privacy). 

We included four components on the timeline in Figure 6 twice based on their 

responses. Three components – the Civil Rights Division, the Office of Justice 

(Cont’d.) 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

42 
 

 

 

 

components, only 11 stated they conducted the checks in the narrower 

time frame recommended by OPM and MSPB. Figure 6 below shows the 

approximate distribution of components that checked references both 

within and outside the opportune time. 

Programs, and the Office of Public Affairs – provided different responses for different 

position types. A fourth component – EOUSA – noted two different points in the hiring 

process where reference checking was performed. Where components provided the 

same answers for multiple position types (such as attorneys and support staff), we 

included them on the timeline once. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

43 
 

Figure 6: Approximate Reference Check Timing 

Notes: We determined reference check timing based on components’ responses to our 

data request question, “Briefly describe your agency’s process for checking applicant 

references, to include: At what point during the hiring process are references 

contacted?” We placed the components on a general hiring timeline in relation to the 

point in the hiring process that MSPB and OPM encourage reference checking. 

These results are based only on components’ self-reporting and variation likely occurs 

within each component. We placed into the “opportune time” category only those 

components that explicitly indicated references are checked not only after interviews 

but after narrowing applicants down to the few top or prior to making a selection. 

Source: 33 component responses to the OIG’s Department-wide data request. 

Like the components, less than one-third of the 88 hiring officials 

(26, or 30 percent) we surveyed indicated they checked references within 

the time frame recommended by OPM and MSPB. Twenty-one other 

hiring officials (24 percent) told us they checked references between 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

44 
 

completing applicants’ interviews and selecting a final, successful 

applicant (no position types were specified). The 41 remaining hiring 

officials stated they conducted reference checks earlier or later in the 

hiring process. Among the 41 officials, 16 checked references only for 

the final applicant, and 21 said that they checked references only for 

internal applicants, that they checked references before the hiring 

official’s supervisor approved the applicant, or that the stage in which 

they checked references varied. 

Few hiring officials obtained applicants’ permission to contact additional 

references. 

Both OPM and MSPB recommend that hiring officials ask 

applicants for permission before contacting any reference, including 

references not provided by the applicant (additional references). MSPB 

specifically recommends obtaining permission from applicants before 

contacting additional references whose names were furnished by the 

original references. It further recommends that hiring officials inform 

references that the applicant has granted permission. Although most 

hiring officials said they obtained applicants’ permission before 

contacting applicant-supplied references, few officials obtained 

applicants’ permission before contacting additional references. Hiring 

officials said they obtained permission to contact the applicant-supplied 

references either by asking the applicant during the hiring process or 

through posting notice of this practice in the position vacancy 

announcement; both methods are consistent with the recommended 

practices. OPM recommends obtaining an applicant’s prior permission 

through the job application itself, orally during the interview, or through 

use of the OF-306 (Declaration of Federal Employment). MSPB states 

that applicants grant “implied permission” to check references when they 

apply for a job and that the signed OF-306 strengthens the legal status 

of their permission, if signed early enough in the selection process. 

Most hiring officials reported obtaining applicants’ permission to 

contact the references they provided using one of two methods. Fifty 

hiring officials (57 percent) told us that they notified applicants during or 

after the interview that their references would be contacted. Twelve other 

officials (14 percent) told us that applicants were notified in the vacancy 

announcement that their references would be checked.66 One official 

told us he notified the applicant once a conditional job offer was made, 

66 Some officials explained that they were not always responsible for posting the 

vacancy announcement and therefore were uncertain whether or when applicants 

completed the OF-306. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

45 
 

 

and the remaining officials said they orally notified the applicant at other 

points during the hiring process. 

Although 56 (64 percent) of the component hiring officials told us 

they requested names of additional references “at least sometimes,” only 

15 (27 percent) also followed OPM’s and MSPB’s guidance to obtain the 

applicant’s prior permission. Most hiring officials (34, or 61 percent) 

explicitly said they did not obtain prior permission.67 

While we did not specifically ask components to report whether 

they requested permission from applicants prior to reference checking or 

informed references that permission had been granted by applicants, 

seven of the components’ written reference check policies or forms 

included such guidance. Of the seven components, four required that 

applicant permission be obtained before contacting applicant-supplied 

references. Reference check materials submitted by two of those 

components also required obtaining applicant permission before 

contacting additional references. The remaining three components’ 

materials generally encouraged (but did not require) hiring officials to 

obtain applicants’ prior permission.68 None of the seven components’ 

materials mentioned informing references that applicants had given 

permission for references to be contacted, as MSPB suggests they do. 

Hiring officials did not consistently document reference checks by using 

a standard form, but did so in other ways. 

To increase standardization and effective reference check practice, 

MSPB recommends that each reference check be documented using a 

form with questions and spaces for answers. MSPB recommends the 

form include the time and date of each discussion, who conducted it, and 

other information relevant to the hiring process. However, this practice 

was not occurring consistently among the components.69 Further, OPM 

recommends that reference check records be “stored and retained 

according to agency policy” although neither OPM nor MSPB provide 

67 Of the remaining seven hiring officials, four said they would “sometimes” 

obtain the applicant’s prior permission, and three did not answer the question. 

68 One component recommended obtaining written consent from applicants 

before contacting their references to relieve the current or former employer of any 

liability in providing information during a reference check. 

69 We previously reported that 36 percent of the components (14 of 39 

components) did not submit any written reference check guidance, forms, or 

questionnaires, and 64 percent of hiring officials reported not having a written set of 

reference check questions on a form. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

46 
 

advice on where or for how long reference checking information should 

be retained because the decision is agency-specific. Few components 

provided written guidance on documenting reference checks or retaining 

reference check records, and most hiring officials we interviewed reported 

that they documented reference check information in various ways and 

retained the information for varying periods of time. 

Although hiring officials generally stated they were documenting 

reference checks, they also stated that they were uncertain of component 

expectations and had very little written guidance to follow. Of the 88 

hiring officials we interviewed, 77 (88 percent) reported they documented 

reference checks. Of the remaining 11 officials, 5 stated that they did 

not document checks, and 6 stated that they only sometimes 

documented information obtained during a reference check. 

Circumstances in which the six hiring officials sometimes did not 

document reference checks included when the information provided was 

anecdotal, communication with the reference was very brief, the 

information was consistently positive, or documentation was not 

required. 

Seventy-three hiring officials (82 percent) stated that they retained 

the information they gathered during a reference check in some manner 

and for varying periods of time. The records were stored either in hiring 

officials’ own files, their office’s personnel files, or were sent to the 

human resource office for storage. Many (44 percent or 39 officials) did 

not know how long reference checking records should be kept. The 

period of retention varied among hiring officials who reported 

maintaining reference check records; a period of 1 to 3 years was most 

commonly cited.70 

Regarding requirements for documenting and retaining reference 

check records, seven components’ written guidance (18 percent) 

addressed the documentation of reference checks. Another 27 

components (69 percent) described reference check documentation in 

their responses to our data request, but documentation of checks was 

not addressed in the policies they provided. Seven components made no 

mention of documenting reference checks in either their policies or in 

their responses.71 Regarding the retention of reference check records, 

70 Some hiring officials told us that they sent the notes, completed forms, or 

summaries from reference checks they conducted to a headquarters or human resource 

location. 

71 In our data request we asked components, “Are questionnaires, forms, or 

worksheets used by your agency retained? If so, by whom and for how long?” 

(Cont’d.) 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

47 
 

 

 

 

 

only 1 component explicitly addressed procedures for retaining reference 

check information, while 22 (56 percent) provided descriptions of 

document retention procedures. Sixteen components did not address the 

retention of reference check documents in their responses. Among 

components that did address retaining reference check records, the 

retention period ranged from less than 1 year to the time of the 

employee’s departure.72 

Conclusion 

We surveyed component hiring officials who checked applicants’ 

references and found they conducted the checks even though not 

required to do so because they perceived reference checking to be 

important in determining whether an individual was a strong applicant 

and a good fit for the organization. They also stated that uncovering 

derogatory or contradicting information as part of a reference check 

could prevent the hiring of an applicant who cannot perform the job and 

who will place a burden on office resources. 

Reference check practices varied considerably, mirroring the 

practices recommended by OPM and MSPB in some areas, but not in 

other areas. Practices were generally consistent with recommendations 

by OPM and MSPB that reference checks be conducted by officials 

making the hiring decisions, that hiring officials contact at least three 

professional references, that hiring officials use the telephone to check 

references, and that they spend about 20 minutes on each reference 

check. However, reference checks were often not conducted at the most 

useful point in the hiring process, applicants’ permission was not always 

obtained prior to contacting references not provided by the applicant, 

and results of reference checks were not documented using a standard 

form, all of which OPM and MSPB recommend be done.73 

Components responded to the question by describing whether they documented 

reference checks. We assessed how components addressed documentation and 

retention (whether in a written policy, a description, or not addressed) and what 

retention time, if any, components listed. 

72 Two components kept the information less than 1 year, and another two kept 

it at least 1 year. Four components kept the information for 2 to 3 years. Two 

components kept reference check information for more than 3 years. Four components 

retained reference check information until the employee left the agency. 

73 OPM does not specify how reference checks are to be documented (such as 

using a standard form); it defers to agency human resource offices. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

48 
 

 

Some components conducted vouchering in lieu of a reference 

check. 

We found that some components’ practices substituted vouchering 

in place of a reference check for both attorney and non-attorney 

applicants.74 Further, few hiring officials we interviewed could 

differentiate between vouchering and reference checking. OARM policy 

requires that both vouchering and reference checking be conducted for 

new career attorney applicants, but few components indicated that they 

did so. 

Some components and hiring officials did not distinguish between 

vouchering and reference checking, which have different purposes. 

In response to our request for components to provide the form they 

use for reference checking, two components indicated that they 

conducted reference checks but submitted only Form OBD-236 (voucher 

form), indicating that at least those two components believed that the 

voucher form served the purpose of a reference check.75 Some 

components used the terms “vouchering” and “reference checking” 

synonymously in their responses, while other components submitted the 

voucher form in conjunction with reference checking materials, 

suggesting they recognized some distinction between the two checks. 

Similarly, when we asked hiring officials to differentiate between 

vouchering and reference checking, few correctly identified the difference 

and some referred to Form OBD-236 when asked what form they used 

for reference checking. Only 15 of the 88 hiring officials we surveyed 

(17 percent) correctly identified vouchering as a process to evaluate the 

suitability of an applicant for federal employment, while reference 

checking is a process that verifies duties in past positions and collects 

information on an applicant’s past performance. Four hiring officials told 

us that reference checking and vouchering were one and the same, and 

five told us they used the same form for both. Two hiring officials told us 

74 Vouchering is a type of suitability determination that seeks to verify an 

applicant’s basic residence, education, employment, and criminal history in an effort to 

determine an applicant’s overall suitability for federal service. Unlike reference 

checking, vouchering is typically conducted after selecting an applicant and making a 

conditional job offer. 

75 The two components (the Offices of Legal Counsel and Information Policy) 

were among the six that we excluded from our analysis of components that reported 

regularly conducting reference checks. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

49 
 

 

that they used a question on the voucher form, “Is there anything else 

you would like to add?” as a reference check question. 

Few components indicated that they followed OARM’s requirement to 

conduct both vouchering and reference checks for attorney applicants. 

Few components indicated that they were aware of and followed 

OARM’s requirement to conduct both vouchering and reference checking 

on new career attorney applicants. We asked that components 

responding to our data request “include any information related to your 

agency’s [component] assessment of applicant suitability that either 

complements or is done in lieu of reference checking (e.g., suitability or 

security questionnaires for applicants’ references).” We also requested 

that components submit any reference check materials that differ by 

position or category of position (such as attorneys or investigators). 

Only 10 of the 39 components (26 percent) indicated in their 

responses to our data request that they followed OARM’s requirement for 

attorney hires. Of the 10, only 4 cited or provided OARM’s April 13, 

2010, memorandum establishing the requirement, including OARM 

itself. The remaining 29 components (74 percent) did not indicate 

whether they followed OARM’s requirement.76 

While most components did not specifically mention OARM’s 

requirement, those with large numbers of attorneys described reference 

check practices for attorney positions. Fifteen components (38 percent) 

indicated in their responses that their reference checking procedures for 

attorney applicants differed from procedures for applicants in other job 

series. In addition, while most components (24 components, or 

62 percent) indicated that they conducted reference checks before a 

conditional job offer was extended, as OARM Memorandum 2010-3 

requires, the remaining components did not specify when they checked 

references. 

Only five components (13 percent) either clearly distinguished 

between their use of Form OBD-236 for vouchering and reference 

checking, or described attorney reference checks in enough detail to 

make it apparent that their reference checking and vouchering were 

distinct processes. The remaining 34 components did not clearly 

delineate between reference checks and vouchering and did not 

distinguish the two in their submissions to the OIG. 

76 All 39 components have attorney positions, and 27 of the 39 components 

(69 percent) hired attorneys in FY 2010, according to National Finance Center data. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

50 
 

We concluded that vouchering was occurring in place of, not in 

conjunction with, reference checking at some components for both 

attorney and non-attorney applicants. We believe that the factors 

contributing to this occurrence were the general absence of clear, written 

reference check guidance available to component hiring officials; 

confusion over the purpose of vouchering and reference checking; and 

uncertainty about reference check expectations overall, as discussed in 

the next section. 

The SAVE Council questionnaire proposes combining both performance 

and suitability questions in a single form. 

The SAVE Council’s draft Employment Reference Questionnaire 

combines suitability and performance questions in an attempt to improve 

the overall efficiency of the hiring process and save the Department time 

and money. SAVE Council working group members told us the 

questionnaire would aid in disclosing an applicant’s performance 

problems that would not otherwise be uncovered due to agencies’ 

reciprocity agreements.77 They explained that uncovering questionable 

behavior or performance information could help prevent components 

from spending money to begin, and possibly complete, a background 

investigation on an applicant they ultimately would not want to have 

hired. Members also told us that the questionnaire would hold hiring 

officials accountable for hiring quality applicants and make the hiring 

process more efficient. As of July 2012, the questionnaire had been 

published for comment in the Federal Register. 

Conclusion and Recommendations 

Some components erroneously used vouchering, a suitability 

determination, in place of reference checking, and few hiring officials we 

interviewed could explain the difference between determinations of 

applicants’ suitability, and reference checking. Although we did not find 

inadequate reference check practices that directly led to poor hiring 

decisions, we believe the misconception that vouchering is a substitute 

for reference checking increases the risk that components will make a 

poor hiring decision. A cursory check of an applicant’s suitability for 

77 Pursuant to § 3001(d) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act 

of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-458 (2004), background investigations and determinations 

completed by an authorized investigative agency or authorized adjudicative agency 

must be accepted by all agencies and be transferable to any other authorized 

investigative agency. Section 3001(d)(4) of the Act prohibits authorized agencies from 

conducting an investigation if a current investigation or clearance of equal level already 

exists or has been granted by another authorized adjudicative agency. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

51 
federal service cannot serve as a substitute for a reference check to verify 

the applicant’s duties in past positions and evaluate an applicant’s past 

performance. Understanding the differences between the purposes of 

vouchering and reference checking is critical to ensuring an applicant is 

thoroughly screened for both suitability and capability. 

We believe components could conduct better reference checks and 

make more informed hiring decisions if the Department clarified that 

reference checking differs from vouchering and other suitability 

determinations by: (1) overall purpose, (2) the topics covered, (3) timing 

in the hiring process, (4) who conducts the checks, and (5) the sources 

contacted. Reaffirming use of Form OBD-236 as a voucher form for the 

Department’s screening of applicants’ suitability and establishing 

reference checks as a distinct practice would help clarify the differences, 

even if the two are conducted during the same reference contacts. 

Some components are also unaware of OARM’s requirement that 

both reference checks and vouchering be conducted for all new career 

attorney applicants. Reiterating components’ obligation to follow OARM 

Memorandum 2010-3, which establishes this requirement, would ensure 

that components are aware of their obligation to conduct reference 

checks and vouchering during the attorney hiring process. 

To improve the Department’s ability to select the most qualified job 

applicants we recommend that JMD: 

1. Issue guidance to Department component heads, Executive 

Officers, and Human Resources Officers clarifying the purposes 

of, and distinctions between, suitability determinations (such as 

vouchering) and reference checking, including differences in 

topics covered, who conducts the checks, the sources 

contacted, and when in the hiring process each occurs. 

2. Reiterate components’ obligation to follow OARM Memorandum 

2010-3, which requires both reference checking and vouchering 

using Form OBD-236 for attorney applicants. 

Hiring officials reported they were often uncertain of their 

component’s reference checking expectations and allowable 

practices. 

Hiring officials we surveyed were uncertain of their agencies’ 

expectations for reference checking, including whether checking 

references was required. The hiring officials commonly expressed 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

52 
 

uncertainty about what questions they could ask a reference. More than 

half of the hiring officials we interviewed were not aware of or did not 

have guidelines addressing what could and could not be asked during a 

reference check. Hiring officials also expressed strong interest in 

receiving reference checking guidance and described elements of 

information they would find useful in that guidance. 

Hiring officials were unsure whether their component required reference 

checking. 

Of the 88 hiring officials we surveyed, 36 (41 percent) did not know 

whether their component formally required reference checking by a 

policy or procedure. Twenty-three hiring officials (26 percent) told us 

they believed reference checking was not required at all. Among the 

remaining 29 hiring officials, 15 (17 percent) believed their component 

required reference checking. Fourteen (16 percent) gave responses that 

fell into other categories, including that reference checking was not 

required but was nonetheless an accepted practice, that it was required 

only for certain positions, and that it was required in their office but not 

component-wide. 

Over half of the hiring officials we interviewed reported lacking clear 

guidance in the form of reference check questions. 

The majority of hiring officials we surveyed – 64 percent (56 

officials) – told us their office did not have a set of written reference check 

questions. Further, when we asked the 32 hiring officials whose offices 

did have written questions whether the questions were tailored to a 

specific position, 72 percent (23 officials) said they were standard and 

only 25 percent (8 officials) described them as position-specific (4 of the 8 

also had standard questions).78 

Although 64 percent of the components provided some form of 

written reference check materials, 53 percent (47 officials) of the hiring 

officials we interviewed stated they had not been provided or were not 

aware of any component guidance regarding what questions they could 

or could not ask of references. While the 88 hiring officials who 

participated in our survey were not representative of the entire 

Department, these findings demonstrate that at least some hiring 

officials were unaware of existing guidance from their agencies. For 

example, two hiring officials from the same component each told us in 

separate interviews that it would be useful to have reference check 

78 One hiring official did not know what type of questions his agency used. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

53 
 

guidance from their component addressing what questions could and 

could not be asked. They were unaware that their component had 

already developed this guidance – which included sample reference check 

questions – and had posted it on the component’s intranet. Some hiring 

officials commented that they used their own set of questions and were 

unaware of what questions others in their component used. These 

examples suggest a need for components with published reference check 

questions to re-circulate them to their hiring officials regularly. 

Hiring officials reported being unclear about whether they could 

ask references questions on many topics due to legal or privacy concerns 

and consequently avoided the topics, including specific questions that 

OPM and MSPB recommend 

that hiring officials ask.79 For 

example, more than half of the 

hiring officials we interviewed 

(55 or 63 percent) said they did 

not ask references direct 

questions about whether an 

applicant had performed or 

behaved poorly on the job. 

Instead, two-thirds of the hiring 

officials said they attempted to 

elicit answers about poor 

performance or behavior 

Unclear Reference Check Topics 

Hiring officials reported being unclear if they 

could ask applicants’ references about topics 

such as: (1) leave usage, (2) military service, 

(3) specific behavior problems, (4) whether 

the applicant received poor evaluations, 

(5) whether there were problems that would 

affect the applicant’s ability to perform the 

job, (6) whether there had been specific 

problems between the applicant and his or 

her co-workers, and (7) whether the 

applicant had ever been fired. Additional 

topics are listed in Appendix VI. 

through indirect, open-ended questions. Yet, MSPB encourages agencies 

to ask directly about poor behavior and to probe for specific examples of 

performance. MSPB discusses a common misconception – that 

discussing performance or job-related behavior of an employee is not 

legal. MSPB advises reference checkers that this misconception is false 

because reference checkers have a general “qualified immunity” from 

invasion of privacy charges provided they ask job-related questions. 

Hiring officials also expressed strong interest in receiving reference 

check guidance, including 23 hiring officials (26 percent) who specifically 

stated that they would like to see a list of questions that could and could 

not be asked during a reference check. Hiring officials expressed this 

interest despite 99 percent of them stating that they were “somewhat” or 

79 None of the topics about which hiring officials said they were unclear due to 

legal or privacy concerns were on MSPB’s inappropriate or forbidden topic list (that is, 

gender (including pregnancy), race, color, religion, national origin, age, and sexual 

orientation). However, hiring officials cited questions about an applicant’s marital 

status, children, and disability – topics that appear on some components’ lists of 

questions to avoid. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

54 
 

“very” comfortable with their knowledge of what questions they could and 

could not legally ask during a reference check. However, many hiring 

officials – including those who participated in the telephone survey and 

those we interviewed separately – told us that a fear of litigation added to 

the uncertainty over what can be asked and shared during a reference 

check, and often inhibited the amount of information a reference 

provided. Concerns over the privacy and confidentiality of information 

disclosed during a reference check has also caused confusion among 

hiring officials and, as many hiring officials explained, led to references 

not being forthcoming in their responses. Appendix VI lists other 

problems with the reference check process that hiring officials identified. 

Hiring officials identified information they would like to see appear in 

reference checking guidance. 

Hiring officials identified specific elements of information they 

would like to see appear in reference checking guidance. Some specified 

that the guidance should be issued from the Department, while others 

preferred that each component issue its own guidance. Hiring officials 

we interviewed recommended most often that any reference checking 

guidance issued at the Department-level: 

 be flexible so components may tailor it to their specific needs, 

 include a list of sample reference check questions, 

 include a list of questions that may and may not be asked, and 

 provide for reference check training. 

Hiring officials also suggested that reference checking guidance, 

whether issued by the Department or a component: 

 include a list of reference checking best practices, 

 advise hiring officials how to respond when they are contacted 

as a reference, 

 explain the component’s suitability screening process, including 

when it occurs and what it entails,80 

 name the offices or individuals to whom hiring officials should 

report derogatory information provided by a reference, and 

 name the offices or individuals to whom hiring officials should 

address questions and seek additional guidance. 

80 Some hiring officials told us managers were not always aware of what 

questions were asked during background investigations and vouchering, and might 

omit a question or topic during reference checking because they assumed it would be 

covered during suitability screening. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

55 
Hiring officials’ responses about how candid they were when asked 

questions as a reference illustrate the importance of asking carefully 

formulated questions. When we asked hiring officials what level of detail 

they provided when answering questions as a reference, most said they 

would answer the questions they were asked but would provide details or 

specific information only if they were asked directly. The quality of the 

applicant’s performance and the reference’s willingness to provide 

truthful information about the applicant are also factors affecting how 

truthful and forthcoming references are likely to be. When we asked 

hiring officials how they would provide references for a poor performer 

whom they would like to see leave the office, almost half (47 percent) said 

they would either be honest or would answer only the questions they 

were asked. 

In Appendix VII we provide a list of reference check questions that 

component hiring officials cited as useful, as well as questions suggested 

by OPM and MSPB. OPM and MSPB recommend that reference check 

questions be tailored for each position-specific vacancy announcement. 

OPM officials we interviewed recommended that agencies work with their 

supporting Office of General Counsel to ensure the legality of each 

question. 

Hiring officials were unsure of the protocols for documenting and 

retaining reference check records. 

Hiring officials we interviewed were uncertain of their agencies’ 

expectations for documenting reference check information and retaining 

the records. Almost half of the hiring officials we interviewed (42 percent) 

were uncertain whether their component had any policy or guidance on 

documenting reference checks. Twenty-three percent (20 officials) told 

us their office did have policies for the documentation of reference 

checks. 

Hiring officials were also uncertain where and for how long 

reference check documentation should be stored. There was further 

confusion among officials about whether (and where) to retain reference 

check documentation on applicants whom they do not select. Almost 

half of hiring officials (44 percent) told us that they did not know how 

long reference check records should be retained. 

Conclusion and Recommendations 

Hiring officials we interviewed were uncertain of their agencies’ 

reference check expectations and allowable practices, including whether 

reference checking is required and for which positions; what questions 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

56 
they could ask during a reference check; and how they should document 

and retain reference check information. Further, within components 

that did provide reference check guidance, some hiring officials we 

interviewed were unaware of the guidance. 

Some hiring officials told us they were reluctant to ask key 

questions that would be permitted or that are recommended by OPM or 

MSPB (such as asking directly about poor behavior) because they were 

unsure whether the questions were appropriate. Although we did not find 

inadequate reference check practices that directly led to poor hiring 

decisions, clear component-level guidance and improved certainty among 

hiring officials about their component’s expectations would be beneficial. 

Currently, hiring officials may not be asking questions in a manner that 

elicits the most useful or descriptive response, and hiring officials may be 

asking irrelevant or inappropriate questions of references. These 

conditions diminish the effectiveness of reference checking and can 

increase the risk of unknowingly hiring a poor performer or an 

unqualified applicant. 

We believe that JMD, as the Department’s proponent for human 

resource policy, should create a central location on DOJNet where 

reference check guidance for components and hiring managers is posted 

and regularly updated. JMD should include reference check guidance 

from OPM and MSPB, as well as a list of Department best practices that 

includes sample reference check questions. In addition, based on the 

comments and suggestions of component hiring officials and the 

benchmarks recommended by OPM and MSPB, JMD should assist 

components to update or issue their own comprehensive reference check 

guidance that addresses the following: 

 whether the component requires reference checking; 

 how reference checking differs from vouchering and other 

determinations of applicants’ suitability; 

 who within the component should conduct reference checks; 

 how the checks should be conducted (telephone, e-mail, in 

person); 

 when in the hiring process reference checks should occur; 

 which type of references should be contacted (those provided by 

applicants, those provided by references, personal contacts); 

 whether applicants’ prior permission should be obtained before 

contacting all reference types; 

 what form or questionnaire should be used in conducting 

reference checks; 

 what questions should be asked for each type of position; 

 what questions and topics may and may not generally be asked; 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

57 
 

 

 how and where to document the results of reference checks; 

 how long to retain reference check records; 

 what hiring managers should say (and not say) when they are 

contacted as a reference; 

 how hiring officials should handle and report derogatory 

conduct information provided by a reference; and 

 to whom hiring officials should address their reference check 

questions and seek additional guidance as needed. 

In addition, to maintain hiring officials’ knowledge of reference 

check techniques and to exchange ideas, JMD should provide periodic 

training on reference checks, perhaps as part of a broader human 

resource effort addressing hiring.81 

To improve the Department’s ability to select the most qualified job 

applicants, we recommend that the Justice Management Division: 

3. Justice Management Division Human Resources/ 

Administration office (JMD HR) develop and issue Departmentwide guidance on the use of reference checks. 

4. JMD HR assist components to update or issue comprehensive 

reference check guidance that meets their unique hiring needs. 

5. Create a central location on the Department’s intranet where 

general reference check guidance for components and hiring 

managers is posted and regularly updated, including guidance 

from OPM and MSPB, as well as Department best practices and 

sample reference check questions. 

6. Provide periodic training on reference checks, or include it as a 

part of broader human resource training. 

81 Increased training in effective reference checking techniques was one of 

MSPB’s recommendations in its 2005 report. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

58 
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Although OPM and MSPB encourage federal agencies to check 

applicant references for every hiring action, reference checking is not 

uniformly required by the federal government or by Department 

regulation or directive. While the majority of the components we 

reviewed submitted materials or described practices indicating that they 

conducted reference checks, very few had written policies requiring 

reference checking. We found that reference check practices varied 

among components, and not all of the practices were consistent with 

recommendations from OPM and MSPB. We believe that these 

inconsistencies create risk that components are not uniformly and 

thoroughly screening applicants, and that some hiring officials are not 

collecting information useful in hiring decisions or are simply not 

bothering to check references. Consequently, components may 

unknowingly hire individuals who cannot perform a job well or whose 

talents and interests do not support the component’s mission and 

culture. 

We also found that reference checking was more commonly done 

for non-law enforcement positions and for internal transfers. Many of 

the new employees the Department hired into law enforcement and 

correctional officer positions were not reference checked. Notably, ATF, 

the DEA, the FBI, the USMS, and the BOP had no policies requiring 

reference checks for new criminal investigators, deputy U.S. marshals, or 

correctional officers. These components reported that they generally did 

not check references for those applicants and relied on other methods to 

evaluate skill and aptitude. Collectively, these five components’ hiring 

for those job series accounted for 38 percent of the Department’s total 

hiring actions within our scope during FY 2010. 

Additionally, some components erroneously used a suitability 

determination (vouchering) in place of a reference check, and few hiring 

officials we interviewed could explain the difference between 

determinations of applicants’ suitability and reference checking. We 

believe the misconception that vouchering is a substitute for reference 

checking increases the risk that components could make a poor hiring 

decision. Further, not all components were aware of, or were following, 

OARM’s requirement to conduct both reference checks and vouchering 

for attorney hires. 

Finally, hiring officials were generally uncertain of their agencies’ 

reference checking expectations and allowable practices. Component 

hiring officials we interviewed expressed a need for flexible reference 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

59 
check guidance, including recommended questions and best practices. 

Yet the Department has no central source for reference check guidance 

or training. 

To improve the Department’s ability to select the most qualified job 

applicants, we recommend that the Justice Management Division: 

1. Issue guidance to Department component heads, Executive 

Officers, and Human Resources Officers clarifying the purposes 

of and distinctions between suitability determinations 

(vouchering) and reference checking, including differences in 

topics covered, who conducts the checks, the sources 

contacted, and when in the hiring process each occurs. 

2. Reiterate components’ obligation to follow OARM Memorandum 

2010-3, which requires both reference checking and vouchering 

using Form OBD-236 for attorney applicants. 

3. Justice Management Division Human Resources/ 

Administration office (JMD HR) develop and issue Departmentwide guidance on the use of reference checks. 

4. JMD HR assist components to update or issue comprehensive 

reference check guidance that meets their unique hiring needs. 

5. Create a central location on the Department’s intranet where 

general reference check guidance for components and hiring 

managers is posted and regularly updated, including guidance 

from OPM and MSPB, as well as Department best practices and 

sample reference check questions. 

6. Provide periodic training on reference checks, or include it as a 

part of broader human resource training. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

60 
 

APPENDIX I: FORM OBD-236 

Below are two versions of the Form OBD-236, the Inquiry Regarding 

Suitability of Applicant (voucher form). 

	 Version A is the Department’s August 1994 version, which is 

posted on the Department’s intranet. 

	 Version B is OARM’s version of the form. OARM reiterated the 

requirement to use this form for attorney applicants in an April 13, 

2010, memorandum from its Director to the heads of all 

Department offices, boards, bureaus, and divisions. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

61 
Version A 

us. 0.,0" .... , of Jldlltt .... ry R ... rdiq So.lt.blllly.r Appllcu' 

No ... oIlooMoo1d .. , Qo .. '

--Ioood, 

RototloOl,. AP ....... ' 

V.."" _101 .. Apptt ... " T., 

I, T.,..rkll_ ... . tbilpt ................ ,.' .......... ~,_ of ..... ",.-. 

'" 

J. _"' .. IoIIIII1_lor . .... ' .. ,... •• , ...... o/t". 

(fOIl 01 PLOY til. Ott SUPU V t50M O~ L V) 

'" ~ .PII .... II.tt ( .... "'''''1I ~b pooItloo! 

1 . .... _ .111l1li. r ....... Irt! 

,u NO IIf-.upIoIo) 

.. 

_ T.)'OO _ ........... lion ..... ' . h .. "'Is .......... r ..... fttool r._ .. , jeb for • .,. ... _ ........ job.ft" boln, OIdlW "'" 

-_. ~. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

62 
Version B 

APPLICANT'S NAME, 

DATES OF EMPLOYMENT, 

PLACE NAME OF OF [NDEMPLOYM~""~ [V[DtlAL QUEST '~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ IONED, 

RElATIONSH[P TO APPLICANT: r Employu r Superviw r Co-Woru. 

YEARS 01' RELAT[ON TO APPLICANT: Foom: ____ TO' ___ _ 

[. To)lOU" knowIedgo, i. Ihi, pfflOII .. [;.blo, honel~ INSlwoMy ar.d of load cho""ler'? 

ryes r No ([fno.explaln) 

2. 00)'0\1 

Y., 

have JtIy ..-10 qutSlion lhi' p<l1OIl" ~I[l)' 10 tho U.S.? 

r r No ([fyo .... pllin) 

J. 00)'0\1 know of lI\ythifli qoosIioIIobl. in (he applicants bockJrouncl'l 

ryes r No ([fya.uplaill) 

4. Would you recommend Ihu pelson for • JM)$ition of nmiona[ securily in lhe U.S. GoVl? 

rYes r No (I(no, ""pllin) 

7. Ii thupenonelilible for rehire? r Yes r No ([f"'''ptain) 

I. .ft.,. To your 

... knowled.t. hq lhi, pc-tWI ever bocn nred from ony job for ORY "IIOd, or quilljob in.nDlif>Odl1lll~l-hel'<OUld ... fiftd? r yes r No ([fy .... xpllln) 

Inquiry condOC1ed by, 

PRIVACY ACT (The followl"i infonnolion should be pn:>vided to m. permn bei", inlerViewed 

c...,.,."irc lIIi' I(IIOSllonnll ... ) UI\def the pro.i,io .. of lhe Pri .. cy Acl of 1974, the Inform.lion 

lhal you prov;de '"" be .. Itaoed 10 the Ipplicllll ."Iew you I,ltdfi<llly IndicolllhM you do roo! 

"1lm lhe informllion .. Ioued. P\eQf indic:lle)lOU" pref.rellCt. 

Thll informalion r CAN or r CANNOT be rcIcasoG lo!lle 1pIl1;':1I"II. 

PrInted .... IWId slanature of .... ployee 

oondUClina mis inquiry "'" 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

63 
 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX II: OPM- AND MSPB-RECOMMENDED PRACTICES FOR 

COMPILING AND ASKING REFERENCE CHECK QUESTIONS 

This appendix summarizes additional OPM and MSPB guidance to 

federal managers on how to compile and ask reference check questions.82 

Appendix VII includes the specific questions suggested by OPM and 

MSPB, and those cited as useful by 

component hiring officials. 

1. Ensure each question 

addresses a specific need 

identified in the agency’s 

reference checking strategy 

(MSPB). 

a.	 MSPB advises reference 

checkers to know the reason 

for asking each question and 

the type of information it 

intends to elicit. 

b. MSPB suggests incorporating 

into the questions one or two 

examples of both useful 

responses that answer the 

question and inadequate 

responses that would require 

further questioning. 

c.	 Another strategy for creating 

targeted questions is to begin 

with the rating schedule or 

structured interview 

questions that will be used in 

the hiring process. Because 

those questions are linked to 

job competencies needed for 

Reference Checking Strategy 

Before developing reference check 

questions, MSPB encourages agencies 

to develop a reference checking 

strategy, which may include a subset 

of five strategies: 

1. “Checking the validity of 

information obtained from job 

applications or interviews to 

determine if the applicant has 

been dishonest. 

2. Checking whether an applicant 

has fabricated or exaggerated selfreported information to determine 

whether conclusions drawn from 

this information are accurate. 

3. Clarifying developmental needs of 

applicants to determine what posthire training or development 

opportunities to provide. 

4. Discovering inappropriate behavior 

patterns of applicants to maintain 

a safe and efficient workplace, and 

to protect the employer from 

charges of negligent hiring. 

5. Assessing competencies that have 

not been otherwise adequately 

assessed earlier in the hiring 

process.” 

– MSPB, Reference Checking in Federal 

Hiring: Making the Call (2005), 26. 

82 Summary compiled from the following sources: OPM, Assessment Decision 

Guide, “Personnel Assessment and Selection Resource Center,” 

http://apps.opm.gov/ADT/content.aspx (accessed September 24, 2012); OPM, 

Reference Checking (undated); OPM, End-to-End Hiring Initiative (undated); MSPB, 

Reference Checking in Federal Hiring: Making the Call (2005). 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

64 
the position, responses can be compared directly with information 

provided by applicants. 

2. Begin with basic, verifying questions (such as dates of 

employment or relationship to the applicant) and then move to 

in-depth questions (OPM, MSPB). 

a.	 Sequence: MSPB provides a general sequence for ordering 

questions that follows the pace at which rapport is established 

during reference check discussions. The sequence reflects 

reference checking specialists’ recommendations, survey 

questionnaires, and other types of interviews and matches the 

strategies listed above: 

i.	 Begin with fact-oriented questions that verify résumé 

material or training and experience claims. 

ii.	 Progress to a more evaluative discussion of the 

applicant’s past performance and competencies. 

iii.	 Address the applicant’s developmental needs. 

iv.	 Discuss sensitive information such as potentially 

inappropriate workplace behavior later in the interview. 

b. Verification: MSPB recommends devoting “a question or two” 

early in the reference checking interview to assess the reference 

provider’s credibility as a source of job-related information 

about the applicant. Specifically, reference checkers should: 

i.	 Ask for the reference provider’s job title and employer. 

ii.	 Ask the reference provider to describe the applicant’s 

responsibilities in the former job. 

iii.	 Ensure the nature of the relationship to the applicant is 

work-related and matches information on the résumé. 

c.	 Discovering inappropriate behavior: MSPB advises reference 

checkers to pursue this strategy “with greater subtlety” but to 

ask directly about problem behaviors. MSPB states that it is 

necessary to listen closely to responses and probe when 

reference providers seem reluctant to talk. 

3. Create a standard set of questions tailored to the position or 

vacancy announcement to be filled (MSPB, OPM). 

a.	 OPM directs reference checkers to develop questions relevant 

and specific to the position under consideration. OPM 

recommends adding structure to the reference checking 

process – which it states can greatly enhance its validity and 

usefulness – by basing questions on the required competencies 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

65 
 

and tasks for the position and asking applicants the same set of 

questions. 

b. Similarly, MSPB advises against adopting a “rigidly 

standardized” set of questions, instead recommending that 

agencies use a standard set of tailored questions for each 

vacancy announcement. This will produce comparable 

information from each reference and allow hiring officials to 

better compare applicants. MSPB noted that effective reference 

checkers will customize some questions based on the 

applicant’s résumé and create follow-up questions based on the 

specific discussion. 

4.	 Ensure most questions are open-ended (MSPB, OPM). 

a.	 Asking open-ended questions will prompt references to be more 

descriptive and provide more than just yes or no responses. 

5. Ensure all questions are job-related and common to all applicants 

(MSPB, OPM). 

a.	 Focus the discussion on particular job-related information 

common to all job applicants to ensure fairness and comparison 

between applicants. 

b. Legitimate question topics include performance in past jobs, 

work habits, job-related competencies, and appropriateness of 

past on-the-job behavior. MSPB cautions that it is a prohibited 

personnel practice to discriminate based on the personal 

conduct of an employee or applicant, unless the conduct would 

adversely affect on-the-job performance.83 

6. Focus questions on work behavior that the reference is likely to 

have directly observed (MSPB, OPM). 

a.	 MSPB cautions that only the applicant’s professional references 

will be able to provide information on the applicant’s job-related 

performance. Supervisors (past and present) are considered by 

MSPB to be the “gold standard” of reference providers. Personal 

references may be biased by their relationship with the 

applicant and their characterizations may not accurately reflect 

the applicant’s true job performance. 

83 MSPB cites 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(10). 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

66 
 

b.	 MSPB urges agencies to clearly communicate their expectations 

to applicants about minimum qualifications of acceptable 

references they provide (that references must be able to describe 

the applicant’s job behavior and performance). 

7. Ask follow-up, probing questions and request specific examples 

that show how the applicant has demonstrated each relevant skill 

(MSPB). 

a.	 Each evaluative statement that the reference provides should be 

supported by at least one example to prevent misunderstanding 

and to encourage fairness and accuracy. MSPB found that 

often a general probing question such as, “Can you tell me more 

about that?” or “Can you give me an example?” will produce the 

additional information. 

b. When discussing an applicant’s performance appraisal, probe 

for specific examples of the behavior described rather than 

relying on summary evaluations such as “outstanding” or 

“excellent.”84 Probing for the basis of these evaluations is 

necessary, MSPB states, so this behavior can be matched to the 

standards or expectations of a different job. 

c.	 When asking follow-up questions, MSPB cautions against 

leading the reference provider by suggesting a possible answer; 

the reference checker should only guide the discussion. 

8. Ensure questions are “legally defensible” and avoid inappropriate 

topics (MSPB). 

a.	 MSPB states that reference checkers can meet high professional 

standards within legal boundaries while requesting and 

obtaining information about job applicants without fear of legal 

consequences.85 

84 MSPB cautioned that performance appraisals’ greatest value in a reference 

check is as a memory aid to a former supervisor who is describing an applicant’s 

behavior as observed on the job. 

85 MSPB, citing 5 U.S.C. §§1302, 3301, states, “Past and potential employers 

have generally been granted a ‘qualified immunity’ to discuss the employment-related 

performance and behavior of employees with each other. This immunity means that 

employment-related questions about an applicant’s behavior may, as a general rule, be 

asked and answered with minimal risk of legal liability so long as an applicant’s rights 

are not knowingly violated.” MSPB, Reference Checking in Federal Hiring: Making the 

(Cont’d.) 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

67 
 

 

 

b. In addition to asking about the applicant’s personal conduct, 

forbidden topics include gender (including pregnancy), race, 

color, religion, national origin, age, and sexual orientation.86 

c.	 Although MSPB encourages open-ended discussions with 

reference providers, it cautions agencies to avoid casual 

conversations, which could easily “stray into questionable 

territory.” 

d. MSPB advises agencies to redirect discussions of inappropriate 

topics with reference providers where necessary. “Tactfully 

discouraging” the topic can be accomplished by simply ignoring 

it or asking a job-related question to redirect the conversation. 

9. Clarify any inconsistent or unclear job-related information 

provided by the reference (MSPB, OPM). 

a.	 Asking more specific questions is sometimes necessary, MSPB 

advises. If the information a reference provides is vague (such 

as generalizations), the reference checker should determine 

whether it is supported by “detailed and verifiable evidence.” 

b. When inconsistent information is received from multiple 

reference providers, call one reference provider back to clarify 

the information. 

c.	 When information from a reference differs from what the 

applicant said, OPM advises that it may be beneficial to allow 

the applicant an opportunity to clarify. 

10.	 Consider time constraints and limit the number of questions 

(MSPB, OPM). 

a.	 OPM advises agencies to consider how long it will take the 

references to answer the questions and to keep the list of 

questions to “a manageable number.” 

b. MSPB states that because reference checking is focused, it can 

be conducted quickly and should be “feasible and efficient.” 

Call (2005), 16. Components may vet recommended questions through JMD’s (Human 

Resources) Labor and Employment Law Group. 

86 MSPB cites the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 and the Uniform 

Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures of 1978. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

68 
 

 

APPENDIX III: OIG DATA REQUEST AND COMPONENTS 

IN REVIEW SCOPE 

Our review included 39 components that we determined had hired 

full-time employees nationwide during FY 2010 within the competitive or 

excepted services or in any non-executive job series. Below, we describe 

our methodology in more detail and list the components we analyzed.87 

Initial Data Request 

To identify reference check practices across the Department, we 

sent a data request to 45 components, including smaller offices, boards, 

and divisions, some of which are identified as Senior Management Offices 

(SMO) and Department Leadership Offices.88 We asked components to 

provide copies of any (1) hiring policies, standard operating procedures, 

or other informal reference checking-related guidance applicable to any 

aspect of the hiring process followed during FY 2010 and FY 2011, and 

(2) questionnaires, forms, or worksheets used when contacting 

applicants’ references. We also asked components to answer the 

following written questions: 

 Who typically conducts the reference check? 

 At what point during the hiring process are references contacted? 

 Which references are typically contacted? 

87 Components, offices, boards, and divisions may be counted differently 

depending on whether they are organized under (or report to) a larger component. For 

example, OARM falls under JMD for administrative and budget support but reports to 

the Office of the Deputy Attorney General. We counted components separately where: 

(1) the larger component reported that its subordinate offices or those it supports 

should have separate reference checking procedures, such as the Consolidated 

Executive Office; (2) the components’ intranet, webpage, or organizational chart 

described the office as independent; or (3) our designated component liaison list 

reflected that the component operates independently. 

88 SMOs include the following headquarters components: the Professional 

Responsibility Advisory Office and the Offices of Dispute Resolution, Information Policy, 

Intergovernmental and Public Liaison, Legal Policy, Legislative Affairs, the Pardon 

Attorney, Privacy and Civil Liberties, Professional Responsibility, and Public Affairs. 

Department Leadership Offices include the Offices of the Attorney General, Deputy 

Attorney General, and Associate Attorney General. We counted these offices separately 

because staff from the Consolidated Executive Office – a JMD component that provides 

human resource and other support services for these offices – told us they do not 

conduct reference checks for applicants to SMOs and Department Leadership Offices; 

hiring officials from those offices would conduct their own reference checks. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

69 
 

 

 

 

 

 What reference checking method do you find to be most reliable? 

Why? 

 Are questionnaires, forms, or worksheets used by your agency 

[component] retained? If so, by whom and for how long? 

Components’ Responses 

We conducted our analysis on the responses of 39 of the 45 

components that we initially contacted:89 

 Access to Justice; 

 Antitrust Division; 

 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; 

 Civil Division; 

 Civil Rights Division; 

 Community Relations Service; 

 Criminal Division; 

 Drug Enforcement Administration; 

 Environment and Natural Resources Division; 

 Executive Office for Immigration Review; 

 Executive Office for United States Attorneys;90 

 Federal Bureau of Investigation; 

 Federal Bureau of Prisons;91 

 Foreign Claims Settlement Commission; 

89 We excluded 6 of the 45 components that we initially contacted from our 

analysis of reference checking policies and procedures based on their responses. The 

six components either did not provide a response that addressed the information we 

requested, reported that they hired only employees who were excluded from our review 

scope, or did not have independent hiring authority. The six components and reasons 

for exclusion are as follows: (1) the Executive Office for Organized Crime Drug 

Enforcement Task Forces did not provide any response; (2) the Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services responded that JMD, which it uses for its human resources 

function, would handle its response; (3) UNICOR did not provide a response, but the 

BOP indicated that its reference checking procedures also apply to UNICOR; (4) the 

Office of the Associate Attorney General responded that it hires only political appointees 

and does not have independent hiring authority; (5) the Office of Tribal Justice 

responded that it has hired only detailees and receives its human resources services 

from EOUSA; and (6) the Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties responded that it has used 

only internal hires to staff its office. 

90 EOUSA is the administrative arm of the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices. In order to 

efficiently identify and contact hiring officials in the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, we sent our 

data request to EOUSA. 

91 The BOP includes the Federal Prison System, UNICOR/Federal Prison 

Industries, and the National Institute of Corrections. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

70 
 

 

 

 Justice Management Division; 

 National Drug Intelligence Center; 

 National Security Division; 

 Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management; 

 Office of Dispute Resolution; 

 Office of Information Policy; 

 Office of Intergovernmental and Public Liaison; 

 Office of Justice Programs; 

 Office of Legal Counsel; 

 Office of Legal Policy; 

 Office of Legislative Affairs; 

 Office of Professional Responsibility; 

 Office of Public Affairs; 

 Office of the Attorney General; 

 Office of the Deputy Attorney General; 

 Office of the Federal Detention Trustee; 

 Office of the Pardon Attorney; 

 Office of the Solicitor General; 

 Office on Violence Against Women; 

 Professional Responsibility Advisory Office; 

 Tax Division; 

 U.S. Marshals Service; 

 U.S. National Central Bureau of Interpol; 

 U.S. Parole Commission; and 

 U.S. Trustee Program.92
 

92 The U.S. Trustee Program includes the regional U.S. Trustee Offices and the 

Executive Office for U.S. Trustees. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

71 
 

 

 

 

APPENDIX IV: COMPONENT AND HIRING OFFICIAL SAMPLE 

FOR TELEPHONE SURVEY 

We conducted a telephone survey of 88 hiring officials from the 

Department’s 17 largest components regarding their reference checking 

processes. We discuss how we obtained our sample of hiring officials in 

the sections below. 

Positions Occupied in Each Component 

To determine the Department’s largest components, we identified 

the total number of positions occupied within each component during 

FY 2010. According to National Finance Center data provided by the 

Justice Management Division, 41 components accounted for 133,076 

occupied positions that year.93 Of the 133,076 occupied positions, 

110,415 were within our scope.94 

The largest 17 components accounted for 83 percent of the 

Department’s total occupied positions during FY 2010. Table 3 shows 

the number and percentage of those positions. 

93 There are 41 components instead of 45 because the National Finance Center 

categorizes certain offices under larger components. Whereas we counted Access to 

Justice, OARM, Office of Dispute Resolution, and Office of Tribal Justice as separate 

components, the National Finance Center categorized them as part of the larger 

components under which they fall. 

94 The 133,076 positions represent the total universe of occupied positions in 

the Department in FY 2010. However, our review scope did not include: (1) employees 

hired into the Senior Executive Service; (2) political appointees; (3) temporary, part-time 

employees; (4) internal hires within the same division of a component; (5) OIG 

employees; or (6) BOP correctional officers. When we excluded those employees, there 

were 110,415 occupied positions in the Department in FY 2010 that were within our 

scope. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

72 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

c

Table 3: Occupied “In-Scope” Positions, by Component, FY 2010 

Component 

Number of 

Occupied 

Positions 

Within the 

OIG’s Scope 

Percentage of 

DOJ’s Total 

Occupied 

Positions 

(N=133,076) 

1. Federal Bureau of Investigation 38,738 29.11% 

2. Federal Bureau of Prisonsa 22,284 16.75% 

3. United States Attorneys’ Officesb 14,594 10.97% 

4. Drug Enforcement Administration 10,824 8.13% 

5. U.S. Marshals Service 6,306 4.74% 

Top 5 Component Totals 92,746 69.69% 

6. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 

Explosives 5,881 4.42% 

7. Executive Office for Immigration Review 1,824 1.37% 

8. Civil Division 1,768 1.33% 

9. U.S. Trustee Program 1,442 1.08% 

10. Justice Management Division 1,222 0.92% 

Top 10 Component Totals 104,883 78.81% 

11. Criminal Division 982 0.74% 

12. Antitrust Division 955 0.72% 

13. Civil Rights Division 915 0.69% 

14. Office of Justice Programs 821 0.62% 

15. Environment and Natural Resources Division 796 0.60% 

16. Tax Division 717 0.54% 

17. National Security Divisionc 346 0.26% 

17-Component Total 110,415 82.97% 

a The BOP includes the Federal Prison System, UNICOR/Federal Prison Industries, and 

the National Institute of Corrections. 

b The U.S. Attorneys’ Offices category includes U.S. Attorneys’ district offices as well as 

the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys. 

 We did not include the OIG in this review. Instead, we selected the next largest 

component, the National Security Division. 

Source: National Finance Center. 

Hiring Actions 

We selected a random sample of 104 hiring actions from the 7,731 

hiring actions taken in FY 2010 by the 17 largest components that fell 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

73 
 

 

 

 

within our scope.95 We then asked human resource officials from those 

17 components to provide names of the hiring officials associated with 

the randomly selected hiring actions.96 We determined the number of 

hiring officials to interview from each component by the percentage of 

occupied positions within our scope in each component during FY 2010. 

The number of positions occupied in components we examined 

constituted 83 percent of the total positions occupied within the 

Department during FY 2010. We interviewed 88 hiring officials 

associated with the hiring actions for our telephone survey. Table 4 

shows the number of hiring officials we interviewed from each of the 17 

components, in descending order. 

95 There were 10,182 hiring actions in FY 2010 across the Department that 

were within our scope. Of those, 7,731 occurred within the 17 largest components. To 

determine the number of hiring actions in FY 2010, we analyzed National Finance 

Center data for employees listed as occupying a position in FY 2010. Each personnel 

action for Department employees is assigned a nature of action code, defined by OPM as 

“the specific personnel action used to create or change a civilian personnel record.” 

OPM, The Guide to Personnel Data Standards (Update 58, August 10, 2007), 246. 

Because nature of action codes include a wide range of personnel actions beyond hiring 

a new employee (for example, step increases), we eliminated those that were not hiring 

actions. We then eliminated the types of hiring actions that were not within our scope: 

(1) employees hired into the Senior Executive Service; (2) political appointees; 

(3) temporary, part-time employees; (4) internal hires within the same division of a 

component; (5) BOP correctional officers; and (6) OIG employees. 

96 We excluded hiring managers for special agents, honors attorneys, and 

industry operations investigators employed at ATF from the sample because ATF 

reported not conducting reference checks for those job series during FY 2010. Also, 

when necessary, we provided to human resource officials a second random sample of 

104 hiring actions from which to identify alternate hiring officials. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

74 
 

 

 

 

c 

Table 4: Number of Hiring Officials Interviewed 

for Telephone Survey 

Component 

Number of Hiring 

Officials 

Interviewed 

1. Federal Bureau of Prisons 10 

2. Drug Enforcement Administration 8 

3. Executive Office for United States Attorneysa 8 

4. United States Marshals Service 8 

5. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives 7 

6. Civil Division 6 

7. Executive Office of Immigration Review 5 

8. Justice Management Division 5 

9. U.S. Trustee Programb 5 

10. Antitrust Division 4 

11. Criminal Division 4 

12. Civil Rights Division 4 

13. Tax Division 4 

14. Environment and Natural Resources Division 3 

15. National Security Division 3 

16. Federal Bureau of Investigationc 2 

17. Office of Justice Programs 2 

Total 88 

a The Executive Office for United States Attorneys is the administrative arm of the 

USAOs. To efficiently identify and contact hiring officials in the USAOs, we sent our 

data request to EOUSA. 

b We contacted the U.S. Trustee Program directly to identify hiring officials within the 

program, the U.S. Trustee Offices, and the Executive Office for U.S. Trustees. 

We interviewed only two FBI hiring officials because the FBI does not require reference 

checks for new applicants, as discussed previously in this report. 

Source: National Finance Center and OIG. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

75 
APPENDIX V: OIG TELEPHONE SURVEY INSTRUMENT 

OIG Review 01 Referen .. CII«klnf; (A-10ll.(l()l): "'t_ wtth If ...... Man ...... 

0I11III .. Sq!pt 

~~

You flow bHn rr>ndomI}I Hltcttd to ptHt/dpdlt In Ih, OliG'J mIfw oJ t/lf lIrtptHt,...." '" SUJ""'J """It" . rOIl wer. rotIdomIy H/tcftd 10 lit Inltr'IinmJ ~UH )'OU ~te ithnl/fltd In hovIt>g 

IIftn IN ItItItoJ or J~tln9 o/!IdoI lor ul !roJI_lUrlng oct"'" In 1M ~""nr iii FV .2010. Our rft'!ew Is 

foa,Jld OIl rel'nrQ ~ ptOCIkn lor ree' M", lUred P'""o_t CO!Hf, _SES ' III,O/oyftJ II(IfIonw/df. 

TIlt 1MPOH IJ{ f/I/J hllfM..., IJ 10 gorllff """"",,/kin ~I)'OUt" ImmtdJore c{fIu'J fWko/ ""'-t 

ptPd~J ar>d la fIIJ/n)'OUr condld PfflP'CfiwI '" a I>IrIng o{fIc/QJ obaoll'" re/~ cMding pr<X'n 

RqtrtItCf cMclhI{IlJ 11(11 a rtqIJlmi prot;lkf, liI<rJ we "'" II(I1.Hk!ng /0 ,...,mlnt OO"'{}I/(""., bulla itkntl,., 

liN Jrand/mJ ptPdk'J 0{ lNpm""nl ~IS. rOIl wUI ""flit liltnll/kd PfflDIIGIty in IhI fIPQff. hIJ/tOd, 

Ihf lIt{ormat/orl)'OU provide will be combi"f<1 with rh<>r oJ IIfh ... hlrin~ o/JifiQIs for rtpQrIlng purpous. 

Our finoI {JtOdIIc1 wUllM a pub/idy ....mo/W GIG rtpQrf 0IIt11f1ittg I><Jf firodltHJ, and any TI"COmmtlldatlot\f 10 

/mpI"ow 1M Tt/ttenu cMd<1n9 pracnJ. ~ InlttVkw should rake k .. rllon 60 mI""ftJ 10 campklt. 

GIG"; Fin In _ .mp/O'/H ""m. _ p<nlll<>n from .omple j>rlM 10 <011. 

J. If I'O~ did tIOt ~"",",aIy condoo tho flf ... ....:. chocb. do \'0\' know wIIo did? [N."", Ind ph_ 

n...,..blr) 

-+ "ItO 

-+ 

/CI OWJlkHo J, end in/MIKOl M,.,. 

II Y"" contln", 10 Bo<kfl£Ound. 

lIIetmund 

Somf 01 l1li qllf'JIOInJ "" IhlJ IWWY Miff multlpl. d.oltf rt'pon ... which I will rtOd 010"". Quntlorl, 

wlthou! m"/tIp" ehok. "JponJtS Ort o.kl~ )'OU 10 prtW/d. d..rnplilre rosp<III .... opinion. or uomp"'. 

,...10115 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

76 
.. IIow lone haw you beln • hlrtnl or ~Iedlnl oll\eitlln Ih. ftd.,1l ~ve'nmenll (lM,d P$I rlln~) 

/IIEAD IIESI'ONSESj: 

D Less ttI, n L velf 

D 1 to SyellS 

D Lo". .. iNn S yellS 1 'fUrl] 

s. 

"'" 

Aboul how many emp~es loul h.ayt you hired, 0, IIsISI'" In hi...., .... ~ you h_ bHn .,.t!LiJ. 

.. In IdditiDn to 1111 specific I\IrlnlKOOn ~ Hot dlKUlltd, whit othfl \ypt of poIitioru IIave you hlrtd 

for in your lmm.cIIltt office (e.I., tdmlnilt'lIiYt, analyst I'WlillpIU. atlornty)1 

1. Oots yo ... off.:e's practice for cond\lctlngrlftflll<' c:hec:U YM'/ all"lClIfI andldllts for dilffftnt job 

serltsl (t.l-, 18111 wrsus.ttornlVl YmUS tompt!~ivl service posl1lonl)1 

/READ RESPONSES): 

D Vii, till practice I'Jllts by Job ",its 

D No, ttl, prKtIce doelllOl "ary 

D SOmttlmts m. prlCtkt valits 

O~ .. 

}IJ~J. ~,rnpond to thII Jo/lowilllJ qII"tions Jot 0/1!WfJ qflpb Hriafor whl,h )'Our oUke hirtl lind, 

to 1M tKUnI yo. Ort gown of it nou wIltn rht pnxw Wlrl" tlWft~ job Hr;f .. 

R.!trenct Cbtd!Irw Proem 

for thllltxt HI Q/ qw'llionJ, ~ (l,.lnqW/IIg ~t your Immi!dlalt off,"'1 9t!!WL/!!!!!dlw fpc 

""'toctiflg "mdidatn' ",,"n'" /or I~ purpose 0/ se/ming tnt bt.t <~ndldlrrc. lIejrrMulllldudl 

IUPCrYisotJ (past ond present), pttfl, <olluinJ, ~IUICIQUJ, ""d friends. 

WI ore!W Hrqw'r/nf abowt )'0lIl" agr/KY's Human IIrSO<H"m or PflrJonn,l Sf<wrlly stalfl mrcitGnlJms for 

JClWrII/Ig "",.IMkrUI Jot ~f(I/ selYlct, /(I(/udilllJ wItolJlllly dtt.""inot/au that art HpartJ1. {rom 

rtftrtMl dink>. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

77 
0IG"1 f"lff'~tiINo""'" _..,.. "/frtfrCf fIIf<~"""'" JfK!1m ~ 10 CAI~ 

SOPo<.-o-:IJI' .. ~ 

OilIer-.. _cond"""tllltrICI_ by)Db _: DY .. ~ 

WNdo,,,_.,. -~~-: <OI'IIICttel, 

""' .... teI .......... , 

f<Ir" OJ .. ,~ 

_011 h"" DYe< 

l1rM """"', QlhoI lmo" ... ,,,,,,, "" 

{READ C_ I. lIow often dOfl your office conduct ... ftf'"~ chtcb? REsPONSES1' 

C MOlt of the time 

C SomttlmH 

C"' Co..., 

•• . (tf _r Dr rtlrel'l, why~1 (~Ip to Q\>tltlon 40! 

t. Wl:tm INrine thl hlrlll,l proeeu does YOUI oflkt belln (ontletln, references? 

(RfAO RESPONSESI' 

C 8tfore .... rrowInc thilist to top "ndld.tes 

C After nlrrowtnl tilt list to top undld.tel 

C Afttf icltI1tifvq on. lOp undid", 

C After 

o 

tile tiIldldiitt's iIlttfYltw(s) 

Afte< HOnd~io .... 1 job offtf Is mille 

C Upon wmplttion of' bKk&found/st(wity dllr __ C~tr' ______________________________________________________ ___ 

It!. In Iddillon to or In coo!ufKIion with rtflrlnCt chidln" dollS your offic.1oI1C contilC! pill tmploym 

to otrif'/ Ipplicants' stCUrltv IIId sul\flliity-reliltfdinlormitlon, wnttimH reftrTf<l to JI 

"lI(IlIChtrln&l"''1 

'0.. ~_ !NIIO ... DOJ "" ~)o<, •• ts ... ~ IOrolol to. """ ... Io'~~""" 10Id $UIIlto~'""1t6 

IoIO<MI\kIn IIuI ""' .......... ltyjob ~~ 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

78 
II/EAD I/ESI'ONSlS/: 

C Ya, In IddIt\o<Ilo ,.r.'InC<l dItdin, 

a Ya, In ~nJull<;\ion with refff'roc. chKkln& 

a No, <10 __not ____f)tfforrn vouchl,lnlllj"", 

________skip ______ to q<mt/orI __________________ 

Jl} O~,· __ 

I. {If J"H, hlllddlfIM lo}: When durinllh. hln", process do you COI'Iduct l'Oucherio&1 

I/lEAO /lESPONSES}: 

o 8efof .... rrowI .... lh. lisl 10 lOP Cll'dldll~ 

o Aftff ... rrowlntl Ihi lisl 10 109 " rldldlm 

DAft ... hlel"lllfyln, on, top Cilndldlte 

a Aft ... th. Cilndklitl'llnttNlewjS) 

DAft". COI'Id~IOIlII Job offlr II _de 

o Upon CQm~ttIOll of I bildJro\Ind!*"rity dlNrlnct O~hlr ______________________________________ ___ 

II How do III. ref.renee eked: Ql'fgionl differ from lhosl u k" dun", wuchtfln&l 

The ~ qutStiolll Uf" 1M I.,m ~rtf.ttnu dledt/IIi· 10 ,.fer 10 lilt P'OCffl r"", ouurs 1lfJRa" ",rlng 

d«ilion /s trI(Idr. Plea" rfspond fO Ilrc foIIowirog ",tlIIIIM HIed "" )'OU' eqJQltflCt willi fhIf pot! of the 

ItIrI~ prrxtll. 

u. Do you \1st mflns other tIl.n IhltelfPllont to conduct refer",,, dllCks? 

{/lEAD 0'_ /lESPONSES}: 

0", 

oSOmetmes 

t. {t! 1f' or sollNtlmfl1: Whilt method do you typkIlIy use, and why? 

{/lEAD IlEJPON$£S + CIwdr 01/ rhol oppI~/: 

a Ematl 

a Milled lettfr 

a WI~len form roo- ref,rlllCI 10 complett 

e 0 .. tetter 0 ____of fetommend,tJoo __________________________________ ___ 

w~, ______________________________________ _ 

11 About how lon, dOfi ~ uke for you IndMclu~y to conduct .11 relt ... nett checks for each Cilndidltt, 

Indudl .. thoe IIIDI yoIIlptnd doc\llllIlflOOI thl cOllvetWlionll 

' .... oIiS 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

79 
{I/IAD 0,~fjPOH5ES]: 

. 0", 

C Don'I know 

C Otlltr (sptdfyl 

is. HIYe 1'Oy. III hlr\rIJ offldll, IWr dtitptld lilt rtlpon$lbil~y 10 COOOu<l ,tI",rQ dI.as 10 

!(lIl1ton' else? 

{I/EAD 0,I/

_ 

lSPONSfS]: 

0", 

I. If 10, 10 whom do \'00 or hl"'I'OP ~Iq~ed thl! 10 lod w~y; 

{READ RESPONSES] 

C Anott.., hI~o, oflkl.11n voY' otrke 

o Admin stlfl mtmbtr In yow offa 

o HR fiiPrtStn1-'1YI 

o 0"'_ Secu~ty ' tjlrllllllltM 

16. ,1,1 willi point du,ln, Ihe hlf1nl P'OCHI I rlIjljIlicIonU mid, twirl tIofl tIl.i, rlflrlrlCH mlY " 

dlKkl d? 

{READ REsPONSES] 

C I don'l know 

D Duflncidveftisement of the >'Ieancy (SIlled 10 !hi "Icaney I""O\I",lmtoll 

D Durln,tM: IntHVlfw 

D ,t,ftef me IntrNlewlsl 

D Whllli o;QOd~1oo11 job offer I! mlde 

D Du~o, the blciofrouod In"fStlJ,llloo p,ocess 

D Upon completion of I blCkJtoll'Hl lnllflllplioo 

Drnh·'-----,-cocccccc--,-____ -,~_,cc------------------- o Applianl! lfii 001 notified Ihll1ht'" reftrtoet$ mly be dltcked. 

b. {I/ .... I flllSlWrH o~] 11 your office n01ll1tllpplk,ot, lilil IMi. reltrlllWI mly be (hed;ed, trl! 

IlltrllO'( om., methods II UII!IIO do sol 

{I/IAD RESPONSES] 

D Silted in the "Killey an _oee_ 

D Th'ough thl uH of the For .. OF·306 wllver' 

J ""'''''mOf.JOf'''o.. ... .-oI.o<Io,.'C ... _ .. _." ..... _ro. .......... ..r ..... -... "', ... M/mt'U ~ OJ f _HItIt\t; -....Il10 0rI"11tm~ Po 11 "",11111111_·" comrn<I" ,..oct~1 10· .ppllttnn 10 r«tM I";, 

_of1.1hI~_hH_. 

,...10/11 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

80 
C AnotI!er explicit (Wlilttn f stltement __________________ _ 

C 0 Verbf,tly 00.' ________________________ no~fIe!s tlMidlte ____________ __ 

C. Whll do you do nln ilpplk.lnt hi • .tllid on their opp\k:ltion thlt they do 1\01 ....... t tktlr .:wrent 

supeMsQ< tontKtedl 

Dpo 0!(/ NslmllCr:! of Befcttncts comqct(d 

II. Whilt WI! of rc/erence$ doH your office 15k applkonts to prP'Mel 

(READ IIEsPON$lS - klW 011 rhol opply/: 

C P.olesslonll-+ SupeMsen (plSl or preHlllf 

C ProItsslonll-+ Peer:!. tolleagu.s, subordbmH. Ot otMr co-wo.vrs (PHI Or IInHnlf 

C Ptr5ONll« mlrlCle< "'Ir.,,'os-+ f~,r;;h, "lodiitH 

0""'<.:0::::0.::,.,, C Typl of r.~rt<Q not $Il-IClfled. ------------------------------------­ C Oon't know 

11. How mlny of IIch of thaw ,eference typeS dOli 'r'OII1 offlc •• 11< Ipplkilnll to pr<Mdl1 

C P.oI"""'II-+ SupeNisOtl (pIS! Or prHffllf ]11\$111'] 

C Pro/WionlH P.lrs, collnCUH, subordinlt.1, 01 othtr co-wolters Ipast « pltHnt]l"'HII -] 

o PellONlOt chlrlCler r.~rtnces-+ Fnencl$, Issoclitellim-ert '] 

0""" 

C Numbt<" of rtlereru not spedfitd 

C Oon't kroow 

It. Hgw far btcI! dMs your offlc, require IpjllitlnlJ 10 pr<Md. rmlt""l forI 

[READ IlESPONSESJ: 

C Most recent pos~ion 0011' 

C lilt two position! 

C list thlee positionS 

C fOt positions held op to X nlombe< of teal"! blck ___ __ 

C A II .... (betwltn _ Ind _ I'"rs) 

o Not lpecifitd 

0 C .. Oon't 00=:------- know ------------------------------------------

lO. DoK yoUI' office IvPk.l1Iy contlCt .l!I."f ... encK provided by the Cilndldilttl 

(//£AD 0'_ RESPONSES/' 

0", 

~pe~I~CCCC I. ~"''_=~~~:7=O~~:==c=c~:O:O=:O=:::::_- [1/ noJ Which typl' of rtferlllW tIo you conWier to bl mosl ~llIdllp.oIKl\onll/wperYllOly, 

plrsonll) 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

81 
b, Wh.., IPtJIcinc 10 1 clndldatt'llmrellCt, do \W liver ,tqu~t or occtpl Mom~ of .clditlo''111 

rtltrtntaS who know tI1e Qncjldltt? 

(READ RESPONSES/: 

c.- 0" o SOmtllmts' _____________________ _ 

I, [I/)W IX' somctlmeJ] 00 you Ihen (01'111(1111011 Iddklonil references? 

{READ RESPONSES/: 

O Ves 

0" O Sometlmts' _______________ ______ _ 

11. lU)W 01 ~I Do you obtain 1M liorIdidalt'1 m~lIlon before oontJelin, tht 

iddltlon.1 rtf"tnO;tS? 

[READ RfSPONStS/: 

c.-

0" OSOmtlimlS _ _ ________________________ _ 

l~ Wh.., oondutlinS reference chKkl, If VOl! "Mo'h ~Otw to!D!Of!' illh' candidate'l w.""t 0111$1 

plKt of tmpioymtlll, how .11y would you be 10 (DOII(I thll pinon for Iofo rmal~ on tM 

CIIldidiltll 

(READ RESPONSES/: 

o Vrrylike!y 

o SomewIIIot likely 

o 0 ... Not "'ely ____________________ ___ 

I. Comparm 10 reftftncn pfO'lldtd by tilt Qndidlle, 11010 eff«tlllt do you btIl .... oonlKllnl these 

other referencelilin PfO'MIn. mort r~e lnfolfOlllion ilIoIII I clndidiltt'l performlllCt? 

b. In this ICtnlrio, woold you oonlldfl you. t;OlMIf1.iIlioo to be "off lhe rtCOrd"? 

/READ RESJION5ES/: 

c.-

0" 

II. Dots your office clled publidy .VlIiloOll meill medii Illfl (',e., f Ktboolc) M part of!h' 

chKlI"I or hlrlnf: proc:llSl 

[READ RESPONSES!, 

o VII 

0" 

o Sometimes 

C DQo't ko<ow 

' ... 7011\ 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

82 
II. . (I/!'ft (If)'ft Of or somef/meJ JOIIIlrim" I HOW inform Inform 11M! do 60)'0\1 YOU flnfind d Ihls Informtlion In/oml~lon wh wh.., ... mil~lns mil~ln, rour \'Our I*tnl hlftlll 

dtdslon1 d~si n1 

llII. . 1)0 Do you dOCllmeollhe dOCJjmeol lhe 'H'HuIIJ ""I 01 Cil tIOfldklllt nodidltt ", ... 1t.mlCe erenet COftliittl? conliletJ1 

{MAD IIESPONSl$I /lESPONSl$I' : 

DYe. m_ 

0." 0 ., 

OSom.tlm O Sometlma a 

I . . {If IKII MJ Wny not not? 1 

b. (II _IimfJI Under whilt drcumstlrv;" would you Il21 dowmenl \lit ftlults? 

e. (If (1/ yelJ yesl ~ do you documtrlllhe dOCJjmtnlthe .elflfflte rele<fflte dlf(k died IHlJIII? IHUI1I1 

((/lEAD /lEAD /lE5PONS /lES/'ONSfS £$ + + ~Md ~I«, .. ,,/I /I ,,,,,, ,1>11, "pplyl apply): ' 

o Keep hep h",dwrmen h",dwritten lIOI /IOIes!Tom H hom )'0\1' you. convtrllliom con.eUiltioftS with ""'.tf<t.'''IICIS. tllU1. 

o 0 0 ... .. Keep , I __________________ ______________________________ compllttd compl. ted 1'1..-,,,," rele<,ra chid< dllde form. form. ____________________ ________ __ 

d. :tdIm Wbmll II 1dlil: M: lrlform~ Irlformtlion 1on stored? nortd1 

t/lW tRW /lESPONSES]: /lESPONSESI: 

o PPelSOllnti tf$Oflnel fitH filH (lHumln Humin Resou,clSl ResourcHI 

o PPelSOllntl enonnel filH fllH (lyou' you. inmtdlltt Immldlill offlcel officel 

o Vour You. own niH 

O~he<c:,------------------------------------------------- o Dcn'tlnow Don't ~c:,------------------------------------- know ------------

et. . "', -'1"1 thl prOCe6\l' jlface6u.a H 101 for doCIImlfltlnc OocurTHIntllll the ft$utu <e$ulu of cileflftnCl refer ... " cl\to;b chides IdIddft$sed d<e$sed ill III .... III afflct offiee Q2!g I!2!5lI cr or 

In ettler etlle, IPIIlk JPIIlklbl lble t ,IUkll0Sl1 uicltrg? 

{READ RESPONsaj: /lESPONsa], 

OYel OVel 

0", 0 '" 

o OOcn~know Don't know 

Ir. For fOI tpw !gnu" Ionu" thfllKOld! thflfoCO.m kep kepi? i ? 

(UAD (lIfAD RESPONSES!, ItESPONSES]: 

o 1 "ft" yeil' O. or IHI IKJ 

o 011011'" 11a 3 I'"" " 

o 0 0. o.er1 ... 3 yUfI yeil" 

o 0 .. Doo'ttnow Don'lknOW ,0:,------------------------------------------------ '0:,------------------------------------------------

...... ' ... 10111 01 11 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

83 
" kt rf(:(l(dll'lllln,d for rmrtnc. dI«1u ~or.d..lo;ttd On condldltll who vou do Ilil hire 1 

{RIAO /tfSI'ONSlSJ: 

0," 

0" 

o Don't know 

Bcftr.Dtf Q!esk!rw Oyullool 

I. How doel the type of Inlorm"iooI you .relookl". for UIJ( IITIOIlII t\'Pfl of pOSitionl? ( •.•• 18111, 

Ittomeys., parllIPIi. II\IIIysU)7 

n . Ilf lICIt a~ o~J Whit tVPH of gL!C$llom do \'011 I~k to elicit tM Information you art wtkln&1 

[Describe) 

26. Whlct. queltiolll hlYt you found Illcit till most ustfullnformltion from a refllfllr1ct7 (DHcribt[ 

0" 

o SOmeti"rltl D~Mr' ______________________________________ __ 

11. Not _ntlnllhe klrm VOl' us.e for IUltlb/l;ty, dOH VOUr offke Ule 1 qutstlonnllu or prOYldt.1tt of 

~ wrinffl queitlotlilor )'Ou to use when "'Milal", referllllCH1 

lREAD Rl$/'ONWJ 

DYti 

0" 

I. III yell 00 you use ont $Ilndjrdll.d list 01 questions fCH" I" positions, OR 1ft qlll!ltioIls ~to 

the Iypt 01 poJltlon btl". r,lItd? 

o Standardized list 01 quesllonl(Sldp to _Ub). 

o Position-Tililored questions 

1.111 pMlliofl.tollorfd qwltlolU onllStdl: 

IIow do thl po$~ion-tlollored qUlstlon sets differ from nch othllf7 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

84 
(READ RESPONSES) 

C They ... IPedfic to the job compett"cits/pos~tO" '~ ut,tm"'tI 

[] Othtr 

b. (II)'DII UR Jtllndardlud 01 pMltlOIl-tallllnd qwstlom) 

Do )'011 evtr!llDl!. the referenc:e et.e<t; or Sip INWlool ~ed on your kroMed,e of tile 

~Idate', qualifk:atlons or past ptrfOm1i111"J (I.", 'QullifO:;ltloos" • the conttnt 01 the 

toodldate', resume -such IS lechola! SUb f« In IT posl~on. ' r>t,rlommu' _Infonnltlon from 

otllef plnlH .bout the tolldldlle) 

/OPfH EHMD) 

I. (If)'ft to tlmrr) Ulldtr willi drWm5tlOCflIlfi Ihls o«ufTfdl 

{DPEN ENDED} 

2'.1. 00 yo\I 15k your IMIl..W. of Idd11lonll q!ICSIloll! thlt 1ft not p¥t 01 your offb', Iyplul questlonl? 

0," 

{READ I!£5I'OHSES} 

A"' 

DSOmellrnH 

DOIhtr ____________________________________________ ___ 

I. [I/yesl Whll would be In tumple7 

JO. Do you uk I ny dired question! "boIIl whither the ~Indldatl hu pylpqm:dqr bchgycdppwfy on t~ 

job' 

[READ ftESPONSESI 

0'" flf yes/Whlt qUHIIon(I) do you Ilk? 

0" 

[1/ IIII/Why not? 

lI. 

..

How 

{

. 

Ibly Ire you 10 \'011 IS qUHtlonllbool the (Indldlll'l Dt!lOnli affir.atlonlll1d comet off !h • 

READ RESPONSES} 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

85 
[] Very IIktiV 

o SomItWlllt III'''' 

o No! Ilk.1v OOthe' ______________________________________________________ ___ 

•• [If UktIyI Wh. 1 would bun e~.m~. 01 tNt tvPl of "ion" __________________________________________________ __ 

ll. HIYt you rve, en""lInllred any $tf\Oul iQCOOsilt.n9u bttwHn Info<mI\lon pl'O¥lcl.d by. ClncIid.le on 

Ih. mUm! 0, In .n IoI.Mtw, Ind I ,e/ere"", tlln woukllnd y'Qu to lIJ1stloo lilt Inttsritv 01 thl 

CMldlditt1 [READ RESPONSES] 

"'" 

OYII 

o Don't rlQlI 

I. lItmI How do thon in«lnsisttndll.fftct your hlrln.~, ~ II . 111 

ll. How comfort.blt ... VOII th.1 y'Qu know whll \'011 "n .nd UMot 'IPIty I$k whtfl ""Mu"l"" 

,e/trlne. d!tds1 {READ RESPONSES! 

OVery comfort.bl, 

o s.omewhil comton.Olt 

o Not VW'/ comfortable 

o Notll.1I comforublt 

•. What quKlIons, If .nv. would you !iY 10" of refer.nces, but Hllrve you ,.nnot uk dill to IIpI 

«prt'llCV aJnctmb ( ..... thoM thll Mtm to fall into. ""IV ..... ! 

b. If \'0\1' IIfIIC'I hlf Isw.d guidtlinel roram'"' ........ \'0\1 WllIlIIlsk wilt" ellln, I r,fertnce. willi 

Irt the guldtll...,7 

o Don't hll'lluldtllnll 

o Not Mlrt of 1lIIY gu.lin" 

l', HIS IYtryOl'l,ln your offlo:t who Is relpomlbltlor """dudl", rtf"enc:' mKks received tlllnl",« 

Inmoction7 []yll~UriN from~mL ___________________________________________________ __ 

"" [] 0011" kIIow 

'_jill'. q."'"' 

_ 

t.lSP' rqotI./Irfm_ ~ /0 ,_~, Uot." J/lteo.. prt.oq __ or. 'n iii .. _, II""" 

o/fIcIot .... Nt III'J¥ _ r, ... IQIHe!,'tII quoll ...... I' •• ) 

'!fluor II 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

86 
I. (If tlt>1 Do va" bell_ It would bot ultlul for yo..- offll:. or lilt IHllIrtmtnt lo off .. I,alnln, on 

leference checkln,? 

0.6 

0," 

o Den'1 k.now 

~ Skip 10 qUHllon 35. 

b. (If,.." Old th.llllnllll or Inilluction Incklde clell,uldelinH petlalnln,lo whit mi. lad may ODI be 

Wd.ofleferences? 

0'6 

0 ... 

COon'trd 

e. Dk! tile 1,..,ln, or IMlructlon Mdrtsl how 10 dttermlr.e iQb 'QmRCtW!t! specific 10 lhe ~1I1on 

beln, filled In your offl~1 

o y" 0", 

o 00n'1 rto:.l 

Pytpog qnd Iknd!rJ dl!rfcrcact qmcoo 

)S. OYIIrill, bow .ffKltv. do '/011 COIllld" reflrellC. checklnllO b. it IIlldtinlthl t\'PI of Informitlon 

vau ntld to mik, .. Informed l~nl dedilon? 

(RCAD 1lf5PONSC5} 

o V'ry filtctMI 

o Soml"fl'hlt filKlIvt 

o Not wry tfftctlvt 

o DOIhe' NotlffKlive ________________________________________________________ 1\ all _ 

)6. Iiow effKlM! do you conlider reference cIIectl!lflto be II oMllnl,,! information IPfC/fIaIy lbollla 

candid.te'$ ti!or lob perform!!!,e? 

[RfAD RE5PON5E5} 

OVery effKlM! 

o SoInIwhn effKllw 

o Not wery effKlM! 

o o NO! effertIve 1\ .. Other _____________________ _ _ 

Jl. 0Yer11~ how effectNe do va" conlider refelente d\eetlni 10 be, compiCtd 19 other ml\l!llpn 100I! 

Ind N!CUmCDU "led throogboylthe him, proeeu to ~ the best "ndld,!,? (. -t-, ptrfoomiCIC. 

l"nliuatlonl, wrllln, IImplel, interviews, etc.) 

[READ RESPON5ESI 

o 1.40 ... ,fflld"" 

' ... 12 01 1S 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

87 
o SomtwhJl mOtt effective 

[] About lilt 111M 

[]~eff.etM 

[]~h~ __________________________________________________ _ 

1I. c.o you ,,"t.lny Iptd& IlIImplti of where your effl« dk! nel diN (tft"P!' but In .tlr<npKi 

mtsM 1II.e benefitltd from dolnl sol [Pltll' d""",,), 

n. tin you r,l'lI i1ny spedIIc rumples of where your off" d~ dtd Wl!W JIIrtn, som,one I!e~se of 

InfcrlllfllOll ~ul ... d In 01 rtfertno:t dltckl [PIe_ dtWIbr), 

When YaM Art Cqaltclts! " , Boo"" 

TIltse q.,..,!Jons flirt 10 ",",,10M wlle~ 1!21!~" ",Ikd <If a reference jor~n ,"'plol''' wIlo tulrtflli)! or 

launM., WOtted for I'CII WI baJ oppUed 10 ~fIO!htr pollrJon, 

..0. Whit lel'tl of 6.UII do you provide when .Ikld .bout • fOtmtf or tur ... m employte'l perform.nel? 

I, How do you rtlPOlId 10 qUHlions p'".lr\Int to In ,mplcyw. of youn whom YOJ hiM found 10 bt 

• poor perfor ..... r IIId whom you woukllil;t to _I,,", your offie, ? 

41, Whlllllecilic qUIstionl an those who ~nt.et you for I rtftrtno:' 1$110 ,licit thl molt alldld 

mpol15tS from you ibout.1ormtr or (\I"",t ,mployu's btlll'llor .1Id ptrfomli~? 

I, 15 Ihtrt lI'IytNnl "seth, nller ~.n do Ot s'1 10 elidttht mOJ! ~ I'H9O<ISI from you .bout • 

flIrm" or turf"'! ..... plcyet'l bt/lfVlor...,d perform.,,~.1 

42, To .. hll Pt'"t If' you Inhlbk.d by COl\(linl tktl \'OUr •• Iponlel ... IlOl considered «>nfldentlllind 

m.y bt provl.s.d to the andldlle n [~£AD ESPONSlSJ 

o V,ry inhibited 

[] Somtwlltt IMllllttd 

[] ltoI ... ry Inllobited 

[] 

[]~

Hot .r InhibKtd It . 11 ______________________________________________________ ___ 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

88 
U. IWo't you p«10NI11y eYe' lKeO , Dedct:nt lrIol d,lm ~ "eplion thlt In employe, knew or 

0'_ 

.tf$CHIably IIlouIO h .... known till! In tmployH t!ley hired w .. unf~ for ~ Iobf "plnst you? 

0", 

I. (If ~l Whll ImPIct, If lOY, IiiO tI!t d~ III-.. Oft tht WIY you o;ondll« rel, renct thtclu? 

... H, .. you tver been prohibited lrom n!lpondln, openly to I ,,-.r'lICt tall you , eceived btclUl1 011 

ciciO rugrdsm"mtnt lnygMe. your ruulN or 10I'0Il' ,malovcer 

m_ 

0", 

I . {II rnl WIIat wll thllmpKt, If 'ny, that thll diim I\H Oft the InklUnltiotl you pr1I"otiI6urln, 

,eference dlKlu? 

ConclLWOft 

1111 IcIJt/rM qu«tIcw ,-rroIn to YOIII O¥WIII Wtws Oft till ~r"',," ~ Plf/(fSJ, 1M/tIdIrrg..",. arHf 

.... did not eowr 0<"011 ",11/,,, 1"" would Un to _",'further. 

d ~d Oft you, e>:PI~ '''" with 'efertnCt ~htckln .. CIO VOl' poiN 10 l oy jlfobltms with the rt~ tIU 

check prOCtllo. ItUI tltl t IHm to "etd dlplnmlflt~CYlllUld,"ct or dinctloo? C Vtl(lptdfyf' ___________________ ____ _ 

CNa -

"" HIW you, or ot~" In 'fO'I' office, ultd lOY ,tf.""", clllckil\t ..... liIteo' bill pndlcel from anothtf 

orpnlutloo? 

CVa !~ly fl __________________________________ _ 

0", 

C OrIn't krlOW 

U. "IIMlllmt I""" ." no IMpiinmentowide IlIQulremlflU or •• ldlnce 00 rtftfrnc, cheQIn,. How 

Itt.ct; .. W'Ould \'011 noo dtpil<ttnlflt·wIOe ~ui .. mtnll or IUidince on "fff"cI clleckin,? 

{/lEAD M$PONSE5/ 

C VtfY tlfl!d.Mo 

C SomIwhat.lftctlvt 

o Not vary .ff«lMl 

[] 1\ C~~r' Not Iff_______________teIM ill ______________________ _ 

• Tho,."" $y>_ 1"rv1~~ __ • d ... _d 101 __ ,.. antmPlovH' •• _ ,_ 

thot .... -. _"" ... nil ....... f_obIo 10 ,IIttrnPlo¥to ... rttL«"" ",'_1 ___ IIIt .. pIoy«. 

, ,,,lIollS 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

89 
q . if t, .... anythlnl .~ you would lik, to -.Id abo.1 tilt ... f .... nct c~kl ... p_? Y~(~~II __________________________________ ___ 

D" -

ThInk \'011 HI'f mud! foI your lIIM. TIIII wndudes our InleMtw. 

As t f\;ttd r;rier, \'OIIf respollWS ... 1I be wmblnoed with InfOl'llllltion from other hlrIn, offI l$ and 

.. ported only '" 1M agrtptt. If we !\ted 10 come !lICk to you 10 dartfy Of to follow lIP 011I0I'l11.", ... 

mlV COIIlld you ••• In. 

ThInks aplnl 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

90 
 

 

APPENDIX VI: SELECTED TELEPHONE SURVEY 

RESPONSE RESULTS 

This appendix describes selected component hiring officials’ 

responses to the OIG’s telephone survey about reference checking 

practices. While we discuss many of the hiring officials’ responses in the 

report body, this appendix provides additional responses not covered 

elsewhere in the report. We interviewed 88 hiring officials from the 

Department’s 17 largest components.97 The purpose of the survey was to 

determine the processes components use to check applicants’ references 

and what they find useful about reference checking in the hiring process. 

Hiring Official Demographics 

Years of Experience 

A majority (53 officials) of the hiring officials we interviewed had 

more than 5 years of experience as a hiring official; only 1 hiring official 

had less than 1 year of hiring experience. The 53 hiring officials with 

more than 5 years of experience had an average of 13 years’ experience 

in hiring. 

Number of Employees Hired by Interviewees 

Hiring officials hired a median of 11 employees in the offices in 

which they currently served. Hiring officials hired for a variety of job 

series, but some officials only hired for operational or support staff 

positions.98 

Effectiveness of Reference Checking 

We asked hiring officials about the overall effectiveness of reference 

checking and the effect it has had on hiring decisions. 

97 Appendix III lists the components represented in the telephone survey sample 

and describes our methodology for drawing the sample. 

98 Operational staff are those employees who perform work directly related to 

the mission of the agency. Support staff include administrative officers, human 

resource personnel, and other staff who assist with agency operations. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

91 
Did Not Check References but Should Have 

We asked hiring officials if they could identify instances where 

their office did not check applicants’ references, but in retrospect might 

have benefitted from doing so. Table 5 shows hiring officials’ responses. 

Table 5: Instances Where References Were 

Not Checked But Should Have Been 

Response 

Number of 

Responses Percentage 

Yes 8 9% 

No 79 90% 

Unsure 1 1% 

Total 88 100% 

Source: Telephone survey. 

Hiring officials who said they did not check references reported 

having negative experiences with the employees they hired. Four of the 

eight hiring officials who described instances of hiring an applicant 

without checking references said that the person they hired was 

eventually fired. One official told us that the individual was reassigned. 

Another hiring official said that the individual hired was a “disaster.” In 

another case, the individual hired had relatives in the hiring office, which 

affected coworkers’ perceptions of him. The remaining official told us 

that his office found out “surprises” about the individual hired. 

Did Not Hire an Applicant Based on Reference Check Information 

We asked hiring officials for examples of their office deciding 

against hiring an applicant because of information uncovered during a 

reference check. Table 6 shows hiring officials’ responses. 

Table 6: Instances Where Applicants 

Were Not Hired Because of Reference Check Information 

Response Number of Responses Percentage 

Yes 34 39% 

No 41 47% 

Don’t recall 10 11% 

Don’t know 1 1% 

Cannot provide 1 1% 

Miscellaneous 1 1% 

Total 88 100% 

Source: Telephone survey. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

92 
The list below describes some examples provided by the 34 hiring 

officials who reported encountering information during a reference check 

that led to a decision not to hire an applicant: 

 Applicant was rated below average on a reference check form; 

 Applicant exaggerated accomplishments on a résumé; 

 Reference said the applicant does not have the skills to do the job; 

 Received conflicting information from the applicant and the 

reference; 

 Received “mixed reviews” from supervisors; 

 References revealed a credentialing problem; 

 Applicant claimed they left the job voluntarily when they did not; 

 Reference described issues with applicant taking direction; 

 Applicant applied for a position in which he or she has no 

experience; 

 Performance appraisal was not satisfactory; 

 Behavior of an applicant, such as the applicant would move 

frequently; 

 Reference said they would not hire the person back; 

 Applicants were applying for a higher grade but reference stated 

the applicant was not up to the performance level; 

 Reference said hiring official might want to look at other 

applicants; and 

 For internal hires, an investigation determined that the applicant 

was not truthful. 

Hiring officials described many instances in which information 

uncovered in a reference check led to a decision not to hire the person. 

In the few instances where reference checking was omitted and there 

were problems later, the individual hired was fired or reassigned. Several 

hiring officials we interviewed acknowledged that removing an individual 

from a position in the federal government is time consuming and costly. 

Inconsistencies in Information 

We asked hiring officials if they have ever encountered any serious 

inconsistencies between information provided by an applicant on a 

résumé or in an interview, or a reference that led the hiring official to 

question the integrity of the applicant. Table 7 shows hiring officials’ 

responses. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

93 
 

Table 7: Inconsistencies Encountered During a Reference Check 

Response Number of Responses Percentage 

Yes 30 34% 

No 52 59% 

Don’t recall 6 7% 

Total 88 100% 

Source: Telephone survey. 

Many of the 30 hiring officials who reported having encountered 

inconsistencies during a reference check told us that uncovering 

inconsistent information would lead to a desire to obtain more 

information before a hiring decision is made, at the very least, or an 

unwillingness to hire the applicant, at most. 

Types of Information Sought and Questions Asked During a 

Reference Check 

We asked hiring officials about the types of information they seek 

during a reference check. Table 8 lists hiring officials’ most common 

responses. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

94 
 

 

 

 

Table 8: Most Common Types of Information Sought During a 

Reference Check 

Information Type Description of Information 

Number of 

Responses 

Skills and abilities Applicant skills and abilities pertaining to what they 

will need to succeed in the position 

40 

Work ethic Applicant’s work ethic 37 

Interpersonal skills Ability to get along with others 34 

Reliability Whether the applicant is reliable 19 

Performance on the 

job 

Applicant success in their current position; degree 

of supervision needed; performance rating 

18 

Writing skills Writing skills 14 

Oral 

communication 

skill 

Ability to effectively communicate orally 13 

Time and 

attendance 

Timeliness 13 

Verification Verification of past employment and 

accomplishments 

13 

Character Applicant’s character 12 

Attitude Applicant’s attitude - Is the person pleasant to be 

around? Do they approach work with a positive 

attitude? 

11 

Honesty Whether the applicant is honest 9 

Rehire Whether the reference would rehire the person at 

their current position 

9 

Organizational fit Whether the applicant will fit in at the new 

component 

6 

Ability to handle 

stress 

How an applicant handles stress or works under 

pressure 

6 

Experience What experience the applicant has 6 

Discipline Have there been any disciplinary incidents or 

misconduct at past places of employment 

6 

Strengths and 

weaknesses 

Applicant’s strengths and weaknesses 5 

Embarrassing 

information 

Anything from the applicant’s past that would be 

embarrassing or harmful to the organization 

5 

Initiative Shows initiative 5 

Total 281 

Note: The total number of responses to this question is greater than the total number 

of hiring officials interviewed because hiring officials’ responses covered more than one 

topic. 

Source: Telephone survey. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

95 
Variation of Reference Check Questions by Position 

We asked hiring officials if the information they seek during a 

reference check varies by the type of position for which the applicant 

applied. Table 9 lists hiring officials’ responses. 

Table 9: Variation of Reference Check Questions by Position 

Description 

Number of 

Responses 

Reference check questions will vary by position depending on the skill 

required for the position and performance expectations of the individual. 

35 

Does not vary by position. 32 

Official only hires for one job series so does not know if the questions 

vary. 

9 

Miscellaneous: Similar questions, it varies, not too much variation, and 

varies slightly. 

6 

Some questions in the reference check are the same and some are 

different for different positions 

2 

Don’t know 2 

Not applicable 2 

Total 88 

Source: Telephone survey. 

Standardization of Reference Check Questions 

We asked hiring officials if they asked their own set of reference 

check questions in addition to those that their office uses. Table 10 lists 

hiring officials’ responses. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

96 
 

 

Table 10: Hiring Officials Who Ask an Additional Set of Questions 

Response 

Number of 

Responses Percentage (N=32) Percentage (N=88) 

Yes 6 19% 7% 

No 21 66% 24% 

Other 5 16% 6% 

Total 32 100% 36% 

Notes: Only hiring officials who responded that their office had a standard or positiontailored set of reference checking questions were asked this question. 

Percentages do not sum because of rounding. 

a “Other” responses included hiring officials who said they ask follow-up questions 

depending on a reference’s response and they try to keep the questions consistent for 

each reference. 

b Additional response categories, “sometimes,” “don’t know,” and “blank” had zero 

responses. 

Source: Telephone survey. 

Questions about Poor Performance or Behavior 

Direct Questions 

We asked hiring officials if they asked references direct questions 

about whether an applicant has performed or behaved poorly on the job 

(we asked about both topics in the same question). Table 11 and the 

narrative below show hiring officials’ responses to that question. 

Table 11: Hiring Officials Who Ask Direct Questions 

about Poor Performance or Behavior 

Response Number of Responses Percentage (N=88) 

Yes 33 38% 

No 55 63% 

Total 88 100% 

Note: Percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding. 

Source: Telephone survey. 

Indirect Questions 

Two-thirds of the hiring officials we interviewed told us that they 

did not ask direct questions about poor performance or behavior, but 

rather elicited answers through indirect questions. Some of the topics 

hiring officials said they used to determine the answers were: 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

97 
 ability to handle stress; 

 timely arrival to work each day and handling multiple 

assignments; 

 questionable events in their background; 

 ethical behavior; 

 team work; 

 responsibility; 

 dependability; 

 whether the reference has any reservations about the 

applicant; 

 what the reference would change about an applicant; 

 how the reference would rate the applicant; 

 whether the reference would hire the person again; 

 strengths and weaknesses; and 

 “What do you think about this person?” 

Hiring Officials’ Comfort Level with Legal Limitations on Reference 

Check Questions 

We asked hiring officials whether they were comfortable in their 

knowledge of what can and cannot be legally asked when conducting 

reference checks. Table 12 shows hiring officials’ responses. 

Table 12: Comfort Level Asking Reference Check Questions 

Comfort Level Number of Responses Percentage 

Very comfortable 55 63% 

Somewhat comfortable 32 36% 

Not very comfortable 1 1% 

Not at all comfortable 0 0% 

Total 88 100% 

Source: Telephone survey. 

Unclear Topics 

We asked hiring officials to provide examples of questions they 

would like to ask during a reference check, but believe that they cannot 

ask due to legal or privacy concerns. The list below shows hiring 

officials’ responses: 

 Applicant’s reliability in coming to work; 

 How the applicant spends his or her time at work; 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

98 
	 Whether the applicant has had any discrimination complaints 

brought against them and whether the applicant can handle 

diversity; 

 Whether there have been any problems that would affect the 

applicant’s ability to perform the job; 

 Whether there have been any behavior issues (if the applicant has 

behaved poorly); 

 Whether the applicant can work on a Saturday or Sunday; 

 Whether the applicant has had poor evaluations; 

 Applicant’s leave usage, including sick leave, and time and 

attendance; 

 Applicant’s appearance; 

 Questions of an employee who is married to an applicant; 

 Applicant’s marital status and whether he or she has children; 

 Applicant’s military service; 

 Whether the applicant has any physical problems that would 

prevent him or her from doing the job; 

 Why the applicant is leaving his or her current position, especially 

for a lateral transfer; 

 How the applicant interacts with others; 

 Whether there have been specific problems between the applicant 

and coworkers; 

 Whether the applicant is taking any medication; 

 Applicant’s personal affiliations; 

 Whether the applicant has ever been fired; and 

 If the applicant has a disability, what type. 

Contact with Current Supervisor 

We asked hiring officials what they do when applicants state on 

their applications that they do not want their current supervisors 

contacted. Table 13 describes some of the most common hiring official 

responses. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

99 
Table 13: Most Common Actions if Applicant Does Not Want 

References Contacted 

Category Definition 

Number of 

Responses 

Will ask if the supervisor can be contacted only if the applicant is in 

serious consideration for the position 

23 

Never encountered the scenario 20 

Will not contact the supervisor if the applicant indicates that they do 

not want the supervisor contacted 

20 

Hiring official would ask why an applicant indicated that they did not 

want their supervisor contacted 

15 

If the applicant does not want the supervisor contacted, the hiring 

official will ask for other references 

9 

Hiring official will contact the applicant’s supervisor even if the 

applicant noted that they did not want the supervisor contacted 

6 

Total 93 

Note: The number of responses is greater than the number of hiring officials 

interviewed because hiring officials’ responses covered more than one topic. 

Source: Telephone survey. 

Training 

We asked hiring officials if all the employees in their organization 

who are responsible for conducting reference checks have received 

training or instruction on how to carry out the task. Training ranged 

from informal training by the head of the hiring official’s section 

providing verbal guidance to formal training from human resource staff. 

Table 14 describes hiring officials’ responses. 

Table 14: Whether Office Received Reference Checking Training 

Response 

Number of 

Responses Percentage (N=88) 

Yes 47 53% 

No 23 26% 

Don’t know 18 20% 

Total 88 100% 

Note: Percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding. 

Source: Telephone survey. 

We asked the 41 hiring officials who did not receive reference 

check training or did not know whether they received the training 

whether such training would be useful. Table 15 shows hiring officials’ 

responses. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

100 
 

Table 15: Whether Reference Check Training Would be Useful 

Response 

Number of 

Responses Percentage (N=41) 

Yes 32 78% 

No 3 7% 

Don’t know 2 5% 

Blank 4 10% 

Total 41 100% 

Source: Telephone survey. 

We asked the 47 hiring officials who received reference check 

training if the training included material on what can and cannot be 

asked during a reference check. Table 16 shows hiring officials’ 

responses. 

Table 16: Whether Training Included Guidance on Permissible 

Questions 

Response 

Number of 

Responses Percentage (N=47) 

Yes 33 70% 

No 5 11% 

Don’t recall 7 15% 

Not sure 1 2% 

Blank 1 2% 

Total 47 100% 

Source: Telephone survey. 

We also asked the 47 hiring officials who received reference check 

training if the training included guidance on how to identify job 

competencies. Table 17 shows hiring officials’ responses. 

Table 17: Whether Training Addressed How to Identify Job 

Competencies 

Response 

Number of 

Responses Percentage (N=47) 

Yes 13 28% 

No 26 55% 

Don’t recall 7 15% 

Not sure 1 2% 

Total 47 100% 

Source: Telephone survey. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

101 
 

Other Issues in Reference Checking 

Social Media Usage in Reference Checking 

We asked hiring officials if they check publicly available social 

media sites, such as Facebook, as part of the reference checking process. 

Table 18 shows hiring officials’ responses. 

Table 18: Social Media Usage in Reference Checking 

Response 

Number of 

Responses Percentage (N=88) 

Yes 8 9% 

No 69 78% 

Sometimes 5 6% 

Don’t know 6 7% 

Total 88 100% 

Source: Telephone survey. 

Of the 13 officials who reported they checked social media sites at 

least sometimes, 7 hiring officials told us that the practice was not very 

informative or helpful. Only three hiring officials told us that checking 

social media sites was effective or informative. The remaining three 

respondents who checked social media sites did not comment on the 

effectiveness of the practice. 

Negligent Hiring Claims 

We asked hiring officials if they had ever had a negligent hiring 

claim against them and, if so, whether the claim affected the way they 

conduct reference checks.99 Table 19 shows the responses. 

Table 19: Involvement in a Negligent Hiring Claim 

Response 

Number of 

Responses Percentage 

Involvement in a negligent hiring claim 2 2% 

No involvement in a negligent hiring claim 86 98% 

Total 88 100% 

Source: Telephone survey. 

99 MSPB defines a negligent hiring claim as an allegation that an employer knew 

or reasonably should have known that an employee it hired was unfit for the job. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

102 
 

The two hiring officials who reported having a claim brought 

against them said the claim had no impact on the way they conduct 

reference checks. 

When Hiring Officials Are Contacted as References 

Because Department hiring officials are themselves likely to be 

contacted for a reference, we asked them to describe how they respond to 

questions from other reference checkers. We collected this information 

in part based on the common misconception, noted by MSPB, among 

reference providers that discussing performance or job-related behavior 

of an employee is not legal. 

Level of Detail Provided by Hiring Officials 

We asked what level of detail hiring officials would provide if they 

were called for a reference in general. Table 20 shows the responses. 

Table 20: Level of Detail Provided by Hiring Officials 

When Called as a Reference (in General) 

Response Number of Responses 

Would only answer the questions they are asked 24 

Would be honest about an applicant’s performance 15 

Has not been asked for a reference or does not recall the 

level of detail provided 

12 

Depends on the type of performer the applicant was (if 

outstanding, would provide more detail) 

11 

Only gives facts about the applicant (dates of employment, 

job duties) and does not volunteer information 

10 

Provides a great amount of detail 8 

Provides a fair amount of detail 6 

Only responds to questions on a standard form 4 

Provides answers to questions based on the applicant’s 

performance rating 

2 

Depends on the questions asked 2 

Depends on the applicant’s experience 1 

Total 96 

Note: The number of responses is greater than the number of hiring officials 

interviewed because hiring officials’ responses covered more than one topic. 

Source: Telephone survey. 

We also asked what level of detail hiring officials would provide if 

they were called for a reference on a poor performer whom they would 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

103 
like to see leave their office. Unlike the responses given in the previous 

question regarding references in general, hiring officials responded most 

frequently that they would be honest about a poor performer. Table 21 

shows the responses. 

Table 21: Level of Detail Provided by Hiring Officials 

When Contacted as a Reference (for a Poor Performer) 

Response Number of Responses 

Would be honest about a poor performer 38 

Has not encountered this scenario 23 

Would only answer the questions they are asked 7 

Would be fair in answering the question and would give 

positives and negatives 

6 

Would answer the questions carefully 5 

Will not provide negative information or will focus on 

positives 

5 

Would defer answering the question or ask not to comment 2 

Depends - if it comes from a federal agency, might answer 

the question but if it comes from a non-federal agency, 

might not. 

1 

Would be neutral or dishonest in answering the question 1 

Would respond that they would not rehire the applicant. 1 

Would rate the applicant in terms of where they fall 

compared to other employees 

1 

Would be very specific 1 

Would keep responses brief 1 

Total 92 

Note: The number of responses is greater than the number of hiring officials 

interviewed because hiring officials’ responses covered more than one topic. 

Source: Telephone survey. 

Inhibited by Privacy or Confidentiality Concerns 

We asked hiring officials if they felt inhibited by concerns that their 

responses would not be considered confidential and might be provided to 

the applicant. Table 22 shows hiring officials’ responses. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

104 
 

Table 22: Inhibited by Lack of Confidentiality 

Response 

Number of 

Responses Percentage 

Very inhibited 2 2% 

Somewhat inhibited 20 23% 

Not very inhibited 14 16% 

Not inhibited at all 46 52% 

Other 6 7% 

Total 88 100% 

Source: Telephone survey. 

Of the hiring officials who responded with “other,” two stated they 

had never encountered the situation; one noted that he would be more 

reluctant if he were receiving a call from the private sector; one told us 

that he would feel more comfortable if the person calling was someone he 

knew; one official told us that he would contact his office’s human 

resource department if he had a question about responding; and one 

hiring official was unsure. 

Problems with the Reference Checking Process 

We asked hiring officials to identify problems with the reference 

checking process. More than half of the hiring officials (56 percent) 

identified problems. Table 23 describes the problems most commonly 

identified. 

Table 23: Most Commonly Identified Problems 

with the Reference Check Process 

Description of Problem 

Number of 

Responses 

Inadequate guidance – A lack of clear guidance on the reference check 

process. 

20 

List of reference check questions that can and cannot be asked is not 

available – No list of questions that can and cannot be asked during a 

reference check. Many of these officials specified a need for a brief, onepage set of questions. 

16 

Honesty – Whether references were being honest in the information they 

gave about applicants. Hiring officials were particularly concerned about 

current supervisors, whose incentive to help a poor performer find other 

employment might discourage an honest assessment of an applicant’s 

skills. 

10 

Training – Insufficient training in the reference checking process. 10 

Source: Telephone survey. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

105 
 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX VII: REFERENCE CHECK QUESTIONS 

This appendix provides a consolidated listing of potential reference 

check questions suggested by OPM and MSPB for hiring official use, as 

well as questions identified as useful by component hiring officials and 

managers that we interviewed in the Department.100 

Table 24 lists all of these potential reference check questions, in 

logical groupings, along with each question’s respective source. The 

specific questions that were recommended by Department hiring officials 

throughout the course of this review are source coded “INT” in Table 24. 

Primarily, these respond to the set of questions that were part of the 

telephone survey and are listed directly below:101 

	 “What types of questions do you ask to elicit the information you 

are seeking?” (telephone survey question 25) 

	 “Which questions have you found elicit the most useful information 

from a reference?” (telephone survey question 26) 

	 “Do you ask your own set of additional questions that are not part 

of your office’s typical questions? If yes, what would be an 

example?” (telephone survey questions 29 and 29a) 

	 “What specific questions can those who contact you for a reference 

ask to elicit the most candid responses from you about a former or 

current employee’s behavior and performance? Is there anything 

else the caller can do or say to elicit the most candid response from 

you about a former or current employee’s behavior and 

performance?” (telephone survey questions 41 and 41a) 

We present the questions in the sequence recommended by MSPB 

(described in Appendix II) and organized by category. For brevity and 

consistency, we combined similar questions and adopted common 

terminology and tense.102 Components should coordinate the reference 

100 OPM and MSPB sources: OPM, Reference Checking (undated), and MSPB, 

Reference Checking in Federal Hiring: Making the Call (2005). 

101 Appendix V contains the telephone survey instrument. 

102 The 88 component hiring officials who participated in our telephone survey 

and the officials we interviewed verbally stated the questions, therefore not all questions 

reflect exact wording. We also adjusted some of the questions to reflect the open-ended 

(Cont’d.) 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

106 
 

 

 

 

 

 

check questions they select for use by their hiring officials with their 

supporting Offices of General Counsel. In addition, in Reference 

Checking, OPM reminded hiring officials that while checking references it 

is possible that the applicant may view a situation, interaction, or goal 

accomplishment differently than a reference and that some discrepancies 

may emerge as a result. OPM advised that if hiring officials receive 

information from a reference that differs from what the applicant said, it 

may be beneficial to allow the applicant an opportunity to clarify. 

Table 24: Selected Reference Check Questions 

Recommended by Hiring Officials 

Questions Source 

1st – Verification Questions 

MSPB recommended that a reference check begin with fact-oriented questions to verify 

information that the applicant provided on a résumé or during interviews, including 

training and experience claims. 

What is your name, job title, and employer? MSPB 

In what capacity did you work with the applicant (peer, supervisor)? OPM 

How long did you work with the applicant and how long ago? MSPB 

Did the applicant hold a leadership position? INT 

Describe the applicant’s role and the duties performed. OPM, INT 

Describe the applicant’s proficiency and knowledge in [subject area]. INT 

What kind of work-related training, certificates, education, or other 

qualifications does the applicant have? [Compare to résumé.] 

OPM, INT 

Was the applicant recommended for an individual award? Why or why not? INT 

2nd – Performance and Competency Questions 

After the fact-oriented, verification questions, MSPB recommended that the reference 

check interview progress to a more evaluative discussion of the applicant’s past 

performance and competencies. 

[Describe job title, vacant position, and responsibilities.] Would you find the 

applicant suitable to perform in this position? Why or why not?a 

INT 

[Describe job title, vacant position, and responsibilities.] Do you think the 

applicant would be a good fit for the position/organization? 

INT 

[Describe job title, vacant position, and responsibilities.] How does the work 

the applicant did relate to this work [vacant position]? 

INT 

Do you think the applicant has [trait needed for position]? Why or why not? INT 

How well did the applicant know the work? OPM 

How well did the applicant perform the job? OPM 

style recommended by MSPB and OPM. Word changes primarily entailed using 

“applicant” in lieu of “candidate” for consistency, “this person,” and “his/her.” We list 

all questions in past tense. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

107 
 

 

 

 

 

How well did the applicant manage the workload? OPM 

How well did the applicant meet deadlines? INT 

How did the applicant react to criticism? Provide an example. INT 

To what extent was the applicant organized? INT 

How much supervision did the applicant require? INT 

Describe the applicant’s analytical ability [or other ability needed]. INT 

What type of judgment did the applicant show? INT 

What motivated the applicant? INT 

Describe the applicant’s skills in the following areas: [position competencies] 

(writing, research, advocacy, problem solving, etc.). 

INT 

How would you rank the applicant’s performance against his or her peers? INT 

How flexible was the applicant? INT 

What kind of product did the applicant produce? INT 

[For attorneys] Would you have enough faith in the applicant to represent 

you or your spouse in litigation? Why or why not? 

INT 

[For supervisors] How did the applicant motivate people? INT 

[For supervisors] How did the applicant interact with subordinates? INT 

[For supervisors] How would you describe the applicant’s leadership style? INT 

[Describe performance evaluation applicant submitted.] How well does the 

last performance evaluation capture the applicant’s performance? Provide 

an example.b 

INT 

How would you describe the applicant’s relationships with co-workers, 

subordinates, and supervisors? 

OPM, INT 

How did the applicant engage with senior management? INT 

How well does the applicant communicate? INT 

How well did the applicant fit into the office or organization? INT 

Can the applicant articulate technical information at the right level (such 

as making a complicated topic easy to understand)? 

INT 

To what extent was the applicant passionate about his or her work? INT 

Describe the applicant’s work ethic. INT 

How quickly did the applicant learn? INT 

To what extent was the applicant a team player? INT 

How would you rate the applicant’s honesty and integrity? INT 

To what extent did you find the applicant dependable? INT 

How well did the applicant handle stress? A crisis? INT 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

108 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3rd – Developmental Needs Questions 

After a discussion of the applicant’s performance and competencies, MSPB recommended 

that the reference check discussion address the applicant’s developmental needs. 

What were the applicant’s strengths? OPM 

What were the applicant’s weaknesses or areas for improvement? OPM, INT 

4th – Sensitive Questions 

MSPB recommended that a discussion of sensitive information, such as potentially 

inappropriate workplace behavior, take place late in the reference check interview. 

Why is the applicant leaving the position? INT 

Has the applicant’s performance or behavior ever been poor? Please 

provide an example. 

INT 

Do you have any reservations about the applicant? If so, what are they? INT 

Has there been any concern about the integrity of the applicant? If so, 

please provide an example. 

INT 

Has the applicant been at fault in any confrontations that were 

counterproductive to the organization? If so, please provide an example. 

INT 

5th – Closing Comments and Catch-all Questions 

The following questions represent the types of questions found at the end of many 

Department reference checking questionnaires. 

What is your overall assessment of the applicant? INT 

[Describe job title, vacant position, and responsibilities.] Would you 

recommend the applicant for this position? Why or why not? 

OPM, INT 

Was the applicant a valued employee? INT 

Is the applicant eligible for re-hire in your organization?c OPM 

Would you re-hire the applicant? Why or why not? INT 

Is there anything else [job-related] you would like to share about the 

applicant? 

INT 

a OPM cautioned that questions asking references to make a “judgment call” of how well 

the applicant will do in the new position are less reliable than questions designed to 

verify an applicant’s past work behavior and experiences. 

b MSPB cautioned that when asking about performance appraisals, hiring officials 

should probe for specific examples of behavior in lieu of relying on summary 

evaluations such as “outstanding” or “excellent.” MSPB cited the greatest value of 

performance appraisals as being a memory aid to a former supervisor who is describing 

an applicant’s behavior as observed on the job. 

Several hiring officials told us this question, which appears on the Form OBD-236, is 

confusing to them and to references. A more useful question, according to hiring 

officials, is the next one: “Would you re-hire this person? Why or why not?” 

Sources: OPM and MSPB resources and responses from component hiring officials we 

interviewed (INT). 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

109 

c 
 

APPENDIX VIII: JUSTICE MANAGEMENT DIVISION RESPONSE TO 

DRAFT REPORT 

l ~ .i>tpartmcnt of J uslitt 

DEC 1 0 1012 

MEMORANDUM FOR JASON HIG LEY 

ACTING ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL 

FOR EVALUATION A 

\Iari Ban Samang 

Ueput} As:Ustar.t Attorn 

for Human Resources 

.R.cspou..~ to tho.: Office of the Inspeocror General" s draft report 

""Rt!fert!nC(" Ched:ing in the l">epartment of Jt1Stic~"" 

.3~ Jl5ticC' Maf!a!Clllent Division (JMO) has re"iewcG the Off~ of me Inspe:\(!. Genem:':." 

dsaft ~ titlod "" f~fKT Chcd:.ing in (re i)epartm:nt uf Justil'C""_ JA.'t: take tho! report.uruier 

ah"isement-;.}nd "ill defc:nnit' l:: the bo1.approoch 10:u:kheo:s tbili mue from Il DqwtITICllt ..... irl:;: 

~\-e-_ ~ ~ th.u refoo:-ooccbecks 3.TC 3D essemial.a:nd!iOlilld manag<"meIf! prac~" 

" 'e. identified the f<lUo\!oing comments 00 the report n:commencimion:;; 

RoJocommltftd;adl}l] jl: lsl!:lI~ g.u.id1Da. 10 Dcp:a.rtlDll"nt Compone nt HC':ilcU, uecuth"c 

011inn. and HIl.IlUIIB ResourttS OffiCEn1 t.:brif);nJ:: Ihr purposes of. and distinctWos 

-aetw~ lillibbility dctcrmioatiow; {sucn as oudt(:ring) and nefl'rUioc chs:killg, n~iudin:; 

1tiffrn:uces ill lopil3 cm'cr-ed, .,."ho couducts the clJ~ks, Ihe OUI"«S nhrch'd. and"w).-"'! ~3 

Ihe hirin~ process elleh eeu~" 

llH) HUIJI3.11 ResolKttS (J~tD UN.) wili iswe guidaooe to <-'orn.ponerll HcaO.s" Ex-xuti\"e 

Offi~'7S. and Hwroan RcsolIDX'S Offica$ regarding ~f~~'t: "becKs. The new guir.lanoc- ui;: 

c:!;nify suilabilit~, detennirunions (sucb.as \"tHIochering) and rd"en.:ooc cm.-cking and the-mcst 

appmpria1e lime 10 ~ I:Ix:s.! ~ \\bro mating. him:; docisiOffi" -~" guitiMa: 

eI~ will he ir.. cQl'lcert wilh the Officl!(lfPer9JWldj., aD!1g.cmr:nt" ~lisbcd ~uid· 

Ji:ld ill p..lJtD<'n.iJip wIth the J:\10"!j. ()ff"J(:C Qf Gent-ral {'-<:,Iti:A:; 

~UllIlU!Bdallnn al: Rritenlc CDmpoot'nut ubtigillirioo to fanow O"~R:M Memon:ndnw.. 

.:1.10"3, ~-:hi£h ,""" ~ bQtb n!f1lfl"llC'e cbl.'dtiJI.g and l"otlchmng lUio: form OBD-2M-1"vr 

attorney C-i1l\lidaII.'S" 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

110 
Memorandum for Joson Higley 2 

.subjett The Office oflheJ nSpedOT Genc:rafs R'!\--K-,IIt" of 

''Reference Checking in the Department of Justice· 

J MD -coocurs with this recommcmimon, and ",ill r-eifenne thr Components' obligatioo ttr..«'ondu~1 

~th refc:rcncc-ehedting.a1Il 'KIuc:bering for attom~' e.andidme:5O; and 'A; il tak~ sC'\'era!;additionai 

:rqttto reinfOlce:this re~uirerncnL first. the omu.: of Aoomey Rocmitmenr.snd \1:magemerr. 

ARM) currentlj" provides (and ""-ill CClluill1lc til pIO_,·ide) annual wtc iew mining fix lIonor:'i 

Program intcrvicu-e:n, whidtinclndesa segment on I"f'fenn:echecking. We also undemand ttr.fl 

.:::!x San~ Cooncil:s prep:mng an Employme.nt Refo!:reooe Qu;::stioun3ire. that wouid CNfIIi:Jine 

eem::nts.ofboth ~ao::l referencechtxkiw;.. Wbe-:l it is approved for Dc:panm::n..-wilie 

~ by JMD, JMD HR and OARM "" ,;ill reY~""'l!le Que.."'rionnaire-anci <k-mmineifn :.,. 

~priate to require that ~ be submitted to QAR.\.{ .... ilh tile. pm-empl()ym:'fll flC-rer'A'OTK.fu r 

1I!to."TIey--I:i1Ddidall'S. And third, if <II completed haC"lground in n:5tigation rcfi"eCis pesform~ 

3sueS or concerns at a uruticbtc"s previous employei, OAR.M will foUow up ",-ith tbc-hiring 

Component to d~nnine v.betbe referenoe checks \!-1:fC c.onduCled prior to making a.:xondi-OOnai 

c&... and rmrino the Conl{JOOl!'n: oftfte rcquirem:::lu:hat rh6 bedDoe, 

.M.ccommendation #3: lknfop and M ue (hop:U1"mCDH"ide guidaoce uo (De U!lC' of rd"ue:oce 

checks. 

See response \0 Recommendation # I. 

AWc.ommelldatioo JJ4.: ~t Componena to upd.llfl': or ~ ... ue ooOl prffieosive n-[en8('t:; 

dud; uitb.o ce: that meets their lfTlique hiring Ilftd8;. 

J.\fD. as a mallcr..,( COUJ5e, assists Comp.lnO(llS \\-;m myriad HR lssms and wl,luld pl(nioe: 

~kal HR 2lI\'iC'c and,.as-n~. rediUlH.lIlth topt...-as~:" 

lht;:ommcadation 115: Cra. e a (eDl)"3l loC'.dioo UII tbe: Lkp .. nllll:-nfs inlnoel Wneft" 

:wert! RJertllr't" dJeock guidaDtt furComponeoB and birin.g mllmllgfl"$ i$ postOO and 

~1ar:ty ltPciaud, in llliio~ guiduu::r from Ol'.:\1.and :"oiSPB. 311wcll :as ikpartmrTH OHT 

l"IIclices and !lImple rd('1"eol"e C'h«k questions . 

. 'MD do..';$ 00( CQllICur lAiln thisn rommend:ation. Jt..fD.HR will detemrinC" "ilc( er~ 

2~-do g, posting, and updating .grncral me-renee dled: gtid:anre.,:as opposed to official 

Departmental g.uid;1llCe, is apprT.JJ:lliatC'. JMD HR pasts all IlIOcess.uy guidance to eithes- l3e !XH 

Human RJ:souu .. -a; wcbpage- m: OOJ-Nd reguirutr- Tilese wehsites se ~ as a ttlltrai:ized.tocmioo 

malJ HR memoranda and guid.:llX'C" to t:mpio}~and Human ResmU"CC'S OfficiaJs. 

RC«Immend.lltiou #& P[t). .... ide periodic tnining'DD r-efe-re-tlct'"di2da, or indudt'-ft .as~ pm 

of broader human resource Iruining. 

:.wn ..wi e:q:alo..-etnc necnsity·and t~-pe of training 00 this issue:. If we derenni:ne SlX'n-naining 

is o ~ ~;II dcknnine the pricri!y, metbodology-and impkmemmiDn of su6 __ ~ 

.1:ltter{)f COUNt.. we use ()W: kaming nmnagemclll ~"litcrns to admioilkrtrnining ~ 

Department-wide in scope. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

111 
Memorandum for Jason Higley 

Subted: The; Offic~ ,,(the- fnSf1OC1Oi Gent:'rah Reviewilf 

"Referro..-e Cbecl:ing in the f)qwtlnc:nt of JU5lice' 

Thalli; ~"'lU fnl:ibe Oppoffil.Ril~· to pro\~ this response... Sbaukl YilU hau, au)' lj~ pfe'..t:'K'" 

COOClCt me at !ofari5lrllangdo@usdoj.l'Ov OT.202-)l.4-550I, ofTercoc-e L CoOOit., Dir"«Ior, 

HulIUUl . ~.LCOll4c ":i. 1Lm.gqv or m-5144~!;C,. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

112 
APPENDIX IX: OIG ANALYSIS OF JUSTICE MANAGEMENT DIVISION 

RESPONSE 

The Office of the Inspector General provided a draft of this report to 

the Justice Management Division for its comment. JMD’s response is 

included in Appendix VIII to this report. The OIG’s analysis of JMD’s 

response and the actions necessary to close the recommendations are 

discussed below. Please provide requested information and 

documentation by February 1, 2013. 

Recommendation 1: Issue guidance to Department component heads, 

Executive Officers, and Human Resources Officers clarifying the 

purposes of and distinctions between suitability determinations 

(vouchering) and reference checking, including differences in topics 

covered, who conducts the checks, the sources contacted, and when in 

the hiring process each occurs. 

Status: Resolved. 

JMD Response: JMD stated that JMD Human Resources (JMD 

HR) will issue guidance to component heads, Executive Officers, and 

Human Resources Officers regarding reference checks. The new 

guidance will clarify suitability determinations (such as vouchering) and 

reference checking and the most appropriate time to use these processes 

when making hiring decisions. Any new guidance developed will be in 

concert with the Office of Personnel Management’s established guidance 

and in partnership with JMD’s Office of General Counsel. 

OIG Analysis: JMD’s response is partially responsive to this 

recommendation. JMD HR’s guidance to component heads, Executive 

Officers, and Human Resources Officers should include who should 

conduct the checks and the sources that should be contacted. Please 

provide the OIG with a copy of this guidance when it is issued to the 

components. 

Recommendation 2: Reiterate components’ obligation to follow OARM 

Memorandum 2010-3, which requires both reference checking and 

vouchering using Form OBD-236 for attorney applicants. 

Status: Resolved. 

JMD Response: JMD concurred with this recommendation, 

stating that it will reiterate the components’ obligation to conduct both 

reference checking and vouchering for attorney candidates, and that it 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

113 
will take several additional steps to reinforce this requirement. JMD 

stated that OARM provides (and will continue to provide) annual 

interview training for Honors Program interviewers that includes a 

segment on reference checking. Additionally, the SAVE Council has 

developed an Employment Reference Questionnaire combining elements 

of reference checking and vouchering. Once the form is approved by 

JMD, JMD HR and OARM will review the questionnaire and determine if 

it is appropriate to require that it be submitted to OARM with the preemployment paperwork for attorney candidates. Lastly, JMD stated that 

in the event a completed background investigation reflects performance 

issues or concerns at a candidate’s previous employer, OARM will follow 

up with the hiring component to determine whether reference checks 

were conducted prior to making a conditional offer and will remind the 

component of the requirement that reference checks be done. 

OIG Analysis: JMD’s and OARM’s actions are responsive to this 

recommendation. Please provide the OIG with the FY 2013 training 

dates for Honors Program interviewers and a copy of the training 

material that addresses reference checking. Additionally, please provide 

the OIG a copy of the approved SAVE Council questionnaire and an 

update on whether JMD HR and OARM decide to include the 

questionnaire in the required pre-employment paperwork for attorney 

positions. 

Recommendation 3: Develop and issue Department-wide guidance on 

the use of reference checks. 

Status: Resolved. 

JMD Response: JMD referred the OIG to its response to 

Recommendation 1. 

OIG Analysis: As with the OIG’s analysis of JMD’s response to 

Recommendation 1, please provide the OIG with the specific content of 

JMD HR’s reference check guidance. 

Recommendation 4: Assist components to update or issue 

comprehensive reference check guidance that meets their unique hiring 

needs. 

Status: Resolved. 

JMD Response: JMD stated that it routinely assists components 

with human resource issues and would provide technical advice on 

reference checking as needed. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

114 
OIG Analysis: JMD’s response is partially responsive to this 

recommendation. While JMD indicated its willingness to assist 

components with their human resource issues, the response did not 

specify the affirmative steps that JMD intends to take to assist the 

components in identifying the new guidance, or updates to existing 

guidance, that each component may need with respect to reference 

checking. Please specify the affirmative steps JMD intends to take, 

including the dates of any regular or previously scheduled forums that 

JMD intends to use to address the subject of needed additional reference 

checking guidance with any Department component. 

Recommendation 5: Create a central location on the Department’s 

intranet where general reference check guidance for components and 

hiring managers is posted and regularly updated, including guidance 

from OPM and MSPB, as well as Department best practices and sample 

reference check questions. 

Status: Unresolved. 

JMD Response: JMD did not concur with this recommendation 

and distinguished between “general” reference checking guidance and 

“official” Department guidance. JMD stated that while it will post all 

official Department guidance, it will determine whether developing, 

posting, and updating “general” reference check guidance is appropriate. 

JMD further stated that JMD HR posts all necessary guidance to either 

the DOJ Human Resources webpage or DOJNet regularly and that these 

sites serve as the centralized location for all human resource 

memoranda. 

OIG Analysis: JMD’s response is partially responsive to the 

recommendation. The OIG agrees with JMD that the DOJ Human 

Resources webpage or DOJNet would be appropriate locations for 

reference check guidance to be posted. However, JMD should make both 

“official” Department guidance and useful reference checking guidance 

from other government sources (such as OPM and MSPB) available to 

component heads, Executive Officers, and Human Resources Officers, 

with each category of guidance clearly identified to avoid confusion. 

Please provide the OIG with a copy of the “official” guidance and the 

online address where it and links to other useful guidance are posted. 

Recommendation 6: Provide periodic training on reference checks, or 

include it as a part of broader human resource training. 

Status: Resolved. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

115 
JMD Response: JMD stated that it will explore the necessity and 

type of training needed on this issue. JMD suggested the learnDOJ 

training tool as the mechanism for delivering any future training. 

OIG Analysis: JMD’s response is responsive to this 

recommendation. The OIG agrees that learnDOJ would be an 

appropriate mechanism for delivering future training on reference 

checking. Please provide the OIG with JMD’s reference check training 

materials (or the relevant portions of broader human resource training) 

and JMD’s intended frequency of such training. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division 

116